On Monday, the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning the registration of offensive trademarks was unconstitutional. The decision was a victory for the Asian-American dance rock band The Slants–and potentially the Washington Redskins.

Simon Tam, the band’s frontman, filed a lawsuit after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) denied his application for a trademark for the name “The Slants.” The agency cited the Lanham Act, which prohibits trademarks “which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

The court ruled in an 8-0 decision that the “disparagement clause” of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment’s free speech clause. Justice Samuel Alito, who delivered the majority opinion of the court, said Tam chose the name of the band “to ‘reclaim’ the term and drain its denigrating force.” According to Alito, the ban on offensive trademarks “offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend.”

The federal government had argued that trademarks are government speech, but Alito wrote to the contrary, saying “trademarks are private, not government speech.” Chief Justice John Roberts as well as Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer were in agreement on the majority opinion.

While the justices reached a unanimous judgement, they were split on why they believed it violated the first amendment. In a concurring opinion, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor, and Elena Kagan, wrote that the measure in question constitutes “viewpoint discrimination.”

Justice Neil Gorsuch did not contribute because he had not yet been confirmed as a justice in January when the court heard the case.

The Slants celebrated the victory with a lengthy statement following the ruling. “The Supreme Court has vindicated First Amendment rights not only for our The Slants, but all Americans who are fighting against paternal government policies that ultimately lead to viewpoint discrimination,” wrote Tam.

Tam said the band never considered itself a political group, but that “the establishment of an Asian American band was a political act in of itself.” As a result, the band has integrated activism into their work by raising awareness and funds for issues affecting Asian Americans.

“Music is the best way we know how to drive social change: it overcomes social barriers in  a way that mob-mentality and fear-based political rhetoric never can,” Tam said.

The Slants’ trademark case could also impact other controversially named groups like the Washington Redskins, which has been in jeopardy of losing its team name for being racially offensive.

In 2014, the Patent and Trademark Office canceled the team’s trademark because the team’s name is a derogatory term for Native Americans. The Redskins appealed the case, but the federal appeals court had delayed hearing it until the Supreme Court ruled in Tam’s case.

Redskins attorney Lisa Blatt said the Supreme Court’s decision “resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government.”

“The Supreme Court vindicated the team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion,” said Blatt.

Marcus Dieterle

Marcus is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is a rising senior at Towson University where he is double majoring in mass communication (with a concentration in journalism and new media) and political science. When he isn’t in the newsroom, you can probably find him reading on the train, practicing his Portuguese, or eating too much pasta. Contact Marcus at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Supreme Court Says Offensive Trademarks are Protected by Free Speech appeared first on Law Street.

An Asian-American dance rock band known as The Slants is one step closer to securing a trademark for its name. But a victory for them could have some unintended consequences. The group recently argued its case to the Supreme Court after a years-long legal battle that began when the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied the band’s application to trademark its name, which is intended to reclaim an anti-Asian slur.

According to the PTO, granting the trademark would be prohibited by the 1946 Lanham Act, which forbids the “registration of marks considered scandalous or immoral” or language that may “disparage” a group of people, like Asian-Americans.

But the Washington Post reported that during an oral argument on Wednesday, the majority of justices seemed to come down on the side of The Slants, who argued that blocking the trademark would violate the First Amendment. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that the PTO refusing to trademark speech it viewed as negative would be “viewpoint discrimination.”

On the other hand, Justice Sonia Sotomayor said that “no one is stopping” the band from calling itself The Slants, and that pushing for a trademark would be “asking the government to endorse” the name. But approving a trademark for The Slants might open the door for the PTO to grant trademarks for other offensive terms (although Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg noted during the arguments that the band’s intent was not to be disparaging).

A win for The Slants in Lee v. Tam could also mean a win for the Washington Redskins, which was denied a trademark in 2014 for the same reason. The football team filed an amicus brief–a document submitted by a party that is not involved, but has a strong interest in the case–to support the band.

The support from the Redskins is ironic, considering the fact that the team has come under fire for spreading Native American stereotypes, while The Slants prioritize combating racism. The band’s front man Simon Tam has explicitly tried to distance himself from the Redskins’ case and its owner Dan Snyder. “I don’t want to be associated with Dan Snyder,” Tam told the Washington Post.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Rock Band The Slants Takes Trademark Case to the Supreme Court appeared first on Law Street.

Update

The trademark–and public opinion–war over the Washington Redskins has been waging on for a while. But there’s a new development in the form of a ruling from an appeals court that may impact the Redskins’ ability to keep their offensive name. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. just struck down a provision of federal law that prevented the copyrighting of offensive names on First Amendment grounds.

The case in front of the appeals court involved a band called “The Slants,” an Asian-American group led by a man named Simon Tam who chose their name in an attempt to “reclaim” the traditionally-derogatory phrase.

The Slants, Asian-American band from PDX, can trademark controversial name, U.S. court rules https://t.co/AjahNdAxAW pic.twitter.com/b8QMi4hWLP

— The Oregonian (@Oregonian) December 22, 2015

The band became embroiled in a legal dispute after it attempted to file for trademarks; the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused the filing. Particularly at issue was something called the Lanham Act, which was passed in 1946, and “prohibits registration of marks considered scandalous or immoral.” However, the recent appeals court ruling decided that parts of the applicable section (2a) were unconstitutional, stating:

The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of § 2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the government has offered no legitimate interests justifying § 2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech. We therefore vacate the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (“Board”) holding that Mr. Tam’s mark is unregistrable, and remand this case to the Board for further proceedings.

Obviously the case of the Slants and the case of the Washington Redskins are very different–one is a band using a racial slur in an effort to reclaim it, the other is a massive sports franchise using a racial slur despite its implications. Those nuances exist in a socio-political sense, but in a legal sense, the cases are very similar. The appeals court didn’t rule that the Slants could use their name because of the way they were using it, but rather because of First Amendment issues–ones that also could apply to the Redskins.

The Washington Redskins’ case is under review by the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, and some legal experts have predicted that it may make its way all the way to the Supreme Court. Since the Lanham Act was passed over 60 years ago, a lot has changed, including the inception of Constitutional protection for commercial speech. But given that the Redskins’ case–which is based on very similar grounds–is making its way through the court system, the fact that another appellate court found that the applicable provisions of the Lanham Act were unconstitutional could end up being pretty convincing for the court hearing the appeal. Ultimately, the question of “offensive speech” as it relates to trademarks is far from being answered.

Update

In light of the Redskins’ recent win that garnered the team the NFC East title, the debate over the team’s name remains hot and heavy. I got the chance to talk about the case with Professor Robert Sherwin, who teaches at Texas Tech University School of Law, and is an expert in federal civil procedure and First Amendment Law. He pointed out that while this ruling may not necessarily persuade the federal judges in the Redskins trademark case, the fact that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington D.C. accepted that part of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional–and was the first court to do so–is noteworthy. Sherwin also shared that this is likely “a big ticket kind of case” and an issue headed for the Supreme Court, although it’s yet to be seen which case the Supreme Court will decide to take on.

Sherwin also highlighted a similar First Amendment Case, decided by SCOTUS just last summer–Walker v. Texas Division, Sons of Confederate Veterans, Inc., in which the court decided 5-4 that the government wasn’t violating free speech when it rejected a Confederate Flag license plate design. However, in a move that surprised many, it was Justice Clarence Thomas who sided with the more traditionally liberal wing of the court to decide that it was not a First Amendment violation. Sherwin pointed out that both sides could use Walker in their arguments, and that the decision could hinge on Thomas, who is “probably the court’s foremost expert on First Amendment issues” when the case makes it the Supreme Court.

There’s a lot that’s up in the air right now when it comes to the Redskins’ name–the recent decision as it relates to the Slants may have only further muddied the waters. But one thing seems almost inevitable to many of us keeping an eye on these cases–this is something that the Supreme Court will have to weigh in on sooner or later.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Appeals Court Okays Trademarking Offensive Names: How Will it Affect the Redskins? appeared first on Law Street.

In June of 2014, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office cancelled six federal trademark registrations for the Washington Redskins, declaring the team name “disparaging to Native Americans.”  This ruling was reinforced earlier today and while owner Dan Snyder is scrambling to defend the trademark, this ruling will unfortunately not actually force Snyder to change the name of the team.

Stripping the team of the trademark is an important first step, but there has been no other legal action leveled against the team that will result in an official name change. Snyder and team President Bruce Allen have doubled down on preserving the team name, finding allies in presidential candidates Donald Trump and Jeb Bush. Despite overwhelming protest from the Native American community (and the American populace in general), it seems like the leadership of the team is determined to retain the name by any means necessary. In 2013, Snyder released a letter claiming that:

After 81 years, the team name ‘Redskins’ continues to hold the memories and meaning of where we came from, who we are, and who we want to be in the years to come.  We are Redskins Nation and we owe it to our fans and coaches and players, past and present, to preserve that heritage.

In a nation where there are infinite loopholes that let teams retain offensive names, the Redskins are an omnipresent reminder of exactly how far we still have to go to create and protect racial equality. Snyder’s disconnect from the reality of the American political landscape and the importance of inclusive language is nothing short of disturbing. Eighty-one years of ignoring organized protest against a racial slur isn’t a legacy, it’s a travesty. Snyder “owes” nothing to the “nation”–football fans turn up to games because they want to see their favorite players win, not because they are demonstrating solidarity with the management’s decision to stay on the wrong side of history. His decision to retain the name is purely financial, which is exactly why he has fought so hard to retain the trademarks.

Snyder appears to be fully aware of the nonsensical nature of his claim, as evidenced by his establishment of the Washington Redskins Original Americans Foundation in 2014, which is dedicated to providing resources to Native communities across the country.  If the term “Redskins” is truly a term full of memories and heritage, why would he use the term “Original Americans” when establishing his foundation?  The contradictory nature of the Foundation’s name reveals that Snyder is not ignorant of the offensive nature of the slur. The Foundation is a transparent attempt to assuage his guilt and pacify Native American activists. Despite Snyder’s efforts to build a positive PR strategy, a new generation of Native youth is growing up surrounded by the slur–seeing it on television screens, t-shirts, and toys across the country. Constant use of the slur is not only frustrating for this generation, it endangers their perception of safety and their ability to learn. If Snyder truly wants to clear his conscience and make peace with the protesters, he’ll need to put in more than minimal effort. This is not a minor gaffe or an honest mistake. The use of a racial slur in the team’s name is a conscious action, which prioritizes profit over equality and inclusion.

Not everyone subscribes to the idea of karma, but if there ever was a case for its existence, it is the Washington Redskins. Since Dan Snyder purchased the team, the team has lost spectacularly and consistently. There are dozens of reasons to change the team’s name, but seeing as none of them have yet swayed management, I’d like to put forward a new one:

Snyder, perhaps if you took a racial slur off of your helmets, your jerseys, your field and your merchandise, the stars would align in your favor and you would be able to win a game.

I hate to think that such an insane idea could actually impact Snyder’s attitude, but at this point, it’s not a stretch to think that a man this deluded about the reality of the world believes that stars can control his fate.

Jillian Sequeira

Jillian Sequeira was a member of the College of William and Mary Class of 2016, with a double major in Government and Italian. When she’s not blogging, she’s photographing graffiti around the world and worshiping at the altar of Elon Musk and all things Tesla. Contact Jillian at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com

The post Changing The Redskins Mascot: Washington, D.C.’s Greatest Embarrassment appeared first on Law Street.

Notorious fantasy betting site FanDuel is in legal trouble yet again. The site is being hit with a class action lawsuit by Washington Redskins player Pierre Garcon. The suit alleges that FanDuel used the name and likeness of Garcon and other players without their permission in order to make money.

The suit claims that FanDuel makes money and promotes its daily fantasy contests “on the backs of NFL players, whose popularity and performance make the Defendant’s commercial daily fantasy football product possible.” The lawsuit argues that ads using Garcon’s likeness, as well as other football players’, appear on TV ads, Youtube spots, and infomercials. Garcon wants compensation for himself and other players who have been used in FanDuel advertising. Garcon had previously worked to promote FanDuel, but it’s unclear what sort of contract he had with the company.

FanDuel doesn’t have a licensing agreement with the NFL, the way that its main competitor DraftKings does. Observers are speculating that the only reason that DraftKings has not been hit with the same lawsuit is for this reason.

It’s unclear whether or not this lawsuit actually holds any weight. Darren Heitner wrote at Forbes about the many reasons why he believes that Garcon’s lawsuit will ultimately prove unsuccessful, including the fact that he chose to file the suit in a state, Maryland, that isn’t exactly hospitable to publicity rights lawsuits. Additionally, Heitner thinks that precedent isn’t on Garcon’s side either, and the fact that he used to actively work to promote FanDuel will be a compelling counter-argument for the company’s lawyers.

But regardless of whether or not Garcon’s suit is successful, the fact that FanDuel is receiving even more negative publicity is hard to ignore. A few weeks back FanDuel and its competitive counterpart DraftKings came under investigation by the New York Attorney General for possible insider trading-like behavior. Another lawsuit currently being waged against FanDuel and DraftKings accuses the two companies of negligence, fraud, and false advertising. Brought by Adam Johnson, and also as a class action lawsuit, the suit is based on the same revelations that sparked the New York Attorney General investigation–essentially the fact that employees of FanDuel or DraftKings had been playing, and winning lots of money, on their competitors’ sites.

Additionally, there’s a lot of controversy over how sites like FanDuel and DraftKings should be regulated. Whether or not they constitute gambling is also a hotly contested question. Some states, like Arizona and Washington, have outlawed the sites. But for the most part, it’s all a legal gray area. However, so far, these scandals and bad publicity don’t appear to have affected FanDuel or DraftKings’ profits–in fact, the opposite has happened, and both companies have seen increases. Garcon’s lawsuit, successful or not, may not be able to make a dent either.

Read More: Fantasy Sports…Ready…Set…Bet!

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post FanDuel Sued by Washington Redskins Player Pierre Garcon appeared first on Law Street.

Midway into a new football season, there are certainly plenty of controversies surrounding the National Football League. Between the ongoing debate on concussions and player safety and the number of NFL players who are under public and legal scrutiny for their actions on and off the field, the NFL is no stranger to scandal. But one of the hottest topics for a while now has been the status of the Washington Redskins’ name. Read on to learn about the controversy, and where it now stands.

Washington Redskins’ History

Up until the 1970s, high school, collegiate, and professional sports teams across the country used mascots depicting Native American historical figures and culture to evoke values of courage, strength, and tenacity, in order to signify these values in the realm of sports. Fans became emotionally attached to these mascots and these symbols; showing their appreciation by performing rituals such as “tomahawk chops” and dressing up in makeshift Native American regalia to support their team. However, these mascots and rituals received backlash during the late 1960s and 1970s, as Native American advocacy groups brought attention to the stereotypical nature of these mascots and their negative portrayal of American Indian culture.

At the request of local tribes, many of these teams abandoned their mascots for less controversial ones, leaving a relatively small number left carrying names such as “Braves,” “Indians,” and the most controversial “Redskins.” In addition to a handful of high school and collegiate teams, five professional sports teams retain their use of American Indian nomenclature: the Washington Redskins, the Atlanta Braves, the Chicago Blackhawks, the Cleveland Indians, and the Kansas City Chiefs. Debate has raged over the past couple decades as to whether these teams and their mascots represent racial slurs and harmful, derogatory stereotypes; or whether they are merely evoking Native American culture out of respect and honor for their courageous spirit.

A lawsuit, which has bounced back and forth between various overturned decisions, was brought against the Washington Redskins in 1992 arguing that its name used a racial slur and should be changed. More resolute than ever in the face of this opposition, the team’s owner Daniel Snyder went on record in 2013 that the Redskins would “NEVER” change its name. In response, a bill was introduced to the House of Representatives in March 2013 by Representative Eni Faleomawaega of Samoa called the “Non-Disparagement of American Indians Trademark Registrations Act of 2013,” a bill that would essentially cancel all trademarks on the name “Redskins” and prevent future parties from trademarking the name. While the bill does not look likely to be passed, it raises interesting questions on the nature of Native American mascots and the legality of their use.

Cancellation of the Trademark

During summer 2014, the Washington Redskins trademark was cancelled by the US patent office. It was cancelled in response to a ruling by the independent Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As the Patent Office put it in its media fact sheet:

The TTAB — an independent administrative tribunal within the USPTO — has determined, based on the evidence presented by the parties and on applicable law, that the Blackhorse petitioners carried their burden of  proof. By a preponderance of the evidence, the petitioners established that the term “Redskins” was disparaging of Native Americans, when used in relation to professional football services, at the times the various registrations involved in the cancellation proceeding were issued. Thus, in accordance with applicable law, the federal registrations for the “Redskins” trademarks involved in this proceeding must be cancelled.

The lawyers and administration of the Washington Redskins have said that regardless of the Patent Office’s decision, they will continue to use the name, logo, and produce paraphernalia.

Media Response 

Within the last year or so, more and more TV newscasters, journalists, and media outlets have refused to use the word “Redskins.” Instead, they refer to it as the Washington Football team. As of this summer, the Washington Post announced that in its editorials it will not use the name of the team. As the editorial board put it:

While we wait for the National Football League to catch up with thoughtful opinion and common decency, we have decided that, except when it is essential for clarity or effect, we will no longer use the slur ourselves. That’s the standard we apply to all offensive vocabulary, and the team name unquestionably offends not only many Native Americans but many other Americans, too.

Who wants to keep the name as is?

Advocates of Native American mascots argue that they represent a respectful portrayal of the culture that highlights positive attributes and offers opportunities for cultural education and understanding. Throughout the debate, teams have maintained that their use of American Indian imagery is done with the best intentions of portraying values such as strength, courage, and pride. These portrayals, advocates argue, honor Native Americans and their ancestors, and serve as a respectful tribute to these proud nations.

While many Native American groups have been vocal in their opposition, a recent poll suggested that as much as 90 percent of Native Americans do not find these mascots offensive or harmful. If a majority of American Indians themselves do not have a problem with these mascots, advocates argue, then the mascots are not entirely the offensive, stereotypical caricatures that opponents have portrayed them to be. Additionally, many advocates argue that these mascots provide opportunities for cultural education that benefit Native and non-Native Americans alike.

Many teams, especially at colleges, work closely with local tribes to provide some form of educational tools for fans and visitors to gain an accurate representation of the Native Americans that their mascots portray. Many tribes are opposed to bans on the use of culturally sensitive mascots because these bans would scuttle potential opportunities such as these to create educational bridges to Native American culture and to promote a harmonious inter-cultural working relationship. To this end, some sports teams using American Indian mascots have received the support of local tribes in the interest of maintaining a respectful portrayal of Native American culture. Florida State University receives the support of the Florida Seminole tribe, which has provided input into decisions regarding the University’s mascot and sports ceremonies. In return for their support, the tribe receives numerous scholarships and reduced tuition for its youth seeking higher education. Advocates argue that this relationship is a vision of the positive effects that could result from the continued use of Native American mascots.

Who wants to change the name?

Opponents argue that cultural references such as the term “Redskins” are inherently derogatory and harmful to the way Native and non-Native Americans view American Indian culture. Merriam Webster states the term “Redskin” is “an offensive term and should be avoided;” Native Americans often equate it to racial slurs used against African Americans and Jewish individuals. Additionally, mascots such as the Cleveland Indians’ “Chief Wahoo” are considered racist caricatures that are equally offensive and should be changed in favor of less controversial mascots.

The recent uproar over comments by the NBA’s Donald Sterling has empowered arguments by opponents seeking to root out racial negativity in professional sports. Opponents argue that these mascots promote racial stereotypes that produce harmful psychological and societal effects on Native Americans. The American Psychological Association recently announced its support for the removal of Native American mascots after the publication of numerous reports revealed links between these mascots and a decrease in self-esteem of Native American youth. A 2004 paper published by Dr. Stephanie Fryberg, a cultural and psychological scholar and a registered member of the Tulalip Tribes in Washington State, uses empirical evidence to argue that these Native American mascots have a negative psychological effect on American Indians and a positive psychological effect on European Americans. Dr. Fryberg indicates that these mascots harm the self-confidence and sense of cultural identity of these youth, which could potentially contribute to lower achievement later in life.

Cancelling the trademark on the term “Redskins,” opponents argue, could provide a legal push for the Redskins team to finally change its name and bring professional sports into the standards of equality and anti-discrimination that the federal government expects. Opponents of Native American mascots argue that their concern is not only the way these mascots influence outsiders’ views, but also how Native Americans view themselves.

Conclusion

The Redskins’ battle to keep its name is really starting to look like a losing one. Although the argument has waged on for years, as the the trademark is now null and void, and members of the media rebel against the name, we may be at a turning point. Public pressure is on — it’s up to Dan Snyder to respond.

Resources

Primary

U.S. Congress: HR 1278 Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2013

Additional

CNN: Native American Mascots: Pride or Prejudice?

USA Today: 50 Senators Sign Letter Urging Redskins to Change Team Name

ESPN: Time to Rethink Native American Imagery

University of Colorado Denver: Do American Indian Mascots = American Indian People?

Think Progress: Native American Group: Fight Against ‘Redskins’ About More Than Just the Name

ESPN: Tribe Supports Native American Mascots

The New York Times: Amid Rising Discord Over Indian Images, FSU Has Harmony

CBS DC: How Many Native Americans Think “Redskins” is a Slur?

Oregon Live: Two Tribes Call State’s Native American Mascot Ban Disappointing

Washington Post: Lawmakers Offer Bill to Ban ‘Redskins’ Trademark

USA Today: Bill in Congress Challenges Redskins Trademark

HeraldNet: The Debate: Indian Names, Mascots For Sports Teams

Joseph Palmisano

Joseph Palmisano is a graduate of The College of New Jersey with a degree in History and Education. He has a background in historical preservation, public education, freelance writing, and business. While currently employed as an insurance underwriter, he maintains an interest in environmental and educational reform. Contact Joseph at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Washington Redskins: What’s Next in the Name Debate? appeared first on Law Street.

I’d like to think my article from last week played a part in the important decision made today, but the true heroes are the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Congratulations, you get the Trevor seal of approval.

The USPTO canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name “Washington Redskins” today, saying that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law.

I’m actually dancing.

Lead attorney Jesse Witten of Drinker Biddle & Reath filed the case before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board on behalf of five Native Americans.  “We presented a wide variety of evidence including dictionary definitions and other reference works, newspaper clippings, movie clips, scholarly articles, expert linguist testimony, and evidence of the historic opposition by Native American groups to demonstrate that the word ‘redskin’ is an ethnic slur,” Witten said in a press release.

Federal trademark law does not allow trademarks that could be considered offensive or racist to groups, so the ruling has stripped the Redskins of six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “redskin.”

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? They could potentially be forced to change the name of the team since they wouldn’t be able to make any money off of anything with the Redskins name or logo. But, Native Americans have been down this road before. In 1992 the Trial and Appeals Board rescinded the team’s trademark, only for it to be overturned in a federal court ruling after the team appealed.

The Redskins will still have rights to their name for the time being as they are expected to appeal the decision much like in 1992, but I have a strong feeling that this time it will be different and people will finally come to their senses and realize that the name is atrociously racist. So everybody please cross your fingers with me.

Daniel Snyder will fight tooth and nail to keep the name of his precious team, and I just learned today that the outspoken owner has a backup plan. Snyder had the name “Washington Warriors” trademarked more than ten years ago according to the Washington City Paper. This convinces me even more that he realizes the Redskins name is offensive, racist, derogatory, disrespectful, hurtful, obnoxious (I could go for days but I’ll stop with obnoxious), otherwise he wouldn’t need a backup name.

I guess I’m okay with Warriors

Native Americans won this battle but the war is not close to being over, it could be months and even years before we see the Redskins change their name and logo. But as a wise man named Trevor Smith once said, “we’ll fight and we’ll fight until we cant fight anymore, because our cause is just but our patience is poor!”

In all seriousness though, this was a great outcome for Native Americans around the country. The five plaintiffs should be extremely proud of their courage and determination as they could be the ones who finally get the organization to change its name.

—

Trevor Smith

Featured image courtesy of [RedSoxFan33 via DeviantArt]

Trevor Smith

Trevor Smith is a homegrown DMVer studying Journalism and Graphic Design at American University. Upon graduating he has hopes to work for the US State Department so that he can travel, learn, and make money at the same time. Contact Trevor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dan Snyder is Definitely Pissed Off by Redskins Trademark Loss and I Love It appeared first on Law Street.