Trademark cases Washington Redskins name controversy

the meaning of term redskin addressed in 2 cases challenging trademark registrations held pro-football, inc., team s corporate entity. challange based upon provision of lanham act prohibited registration of mark “may disparage persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them contempt, or disrepute.” first case, harjo etal. v pro-football, inc. filed in 1992 suzan shown harjo , 6 other native american leaders. in 1999 trademark trial , appeal board (ttab) canceled federal registrations redskins marks. in 2005 united states district court district of columbia reversed ttab s decision on grounds of insufficient evidence of disparagement. subsequent appeals rejected on basis of laches, native american petitioners had pursued rights in untimely manner.

a second case filed younger plaintiffs not effected laches, led amanda blackhorse. linguistic expert petitioners, geoffrey nunberg, argued whatever origins, redskins slur @ time of trademark registrations, based upon passages books , newspapers , movie clips in word inevitably associated contempt, derision, condescension, or sentimental paeans noble savage. nigger began benign reference skin color, become racial slur through disparaging use. on june 18, 2014, ttab again voted cancel trademarks in 2 1 decision held term redskins disparaging substantial composite of native americans. evidence of disparagement include frequent references scalping made sportswriters sixty years when reporting redskins loss of game, , passages movies made 1940s 1960s using redskin refer native americans savage enemy. ttab majority held ncai represented 30 percent of native americans during time in question, board found satisfied substantial composite test of trademark law.

in december 2015, federal circuit court of appeals struck down disparagement prohibition in trademark law in case (matal v. tam) involving denial of trademark registration asian-american band slants. majority opinion stated, in part, [w]hatever our personal feelings mark @ issue here, or other disparaging marks, first amendment forbids government regulators deny registration because find speech offend others. on june 19, 2017, supreme court unanimously ruled in favor of tam, stating disparagement clause violates first amendment’s free speech clause. contrary government’s contention, trademarks private, not government speech. on june 29, 2017, both native american petitioners , justice department withdrew further litigation supreme court has rendered legal issue moot. while team owner daniel snyder expresses opinion court decision victory team, executive director of ncai asserts name remains slur, , decision grants first amendment protection not alter of arguments against continued use.