Motley Moose – Archive

Since 2008 – Progress Through Politics

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancels “Redskins” Trademark

From ThinkProgress on Wednesday, 6-18-2014:


The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins, ruling that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits the protection of offensive or disparaging language.

The U.S. PTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a ruling in the case, brought against the team by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, Wednesday morning.



“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,”
the board wrote in its opinion.

“The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans. The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place,” Jesse Witten, the plaintiffs’ lead attorney, said in a press release. “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.”

In Landmark Decision, U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

The ruling is here (Scribd).

The club will likely appeal the ruling and may or may not have trademark protections during the appeal.

Here is the possible cost:

Losing the trademark wouldn’t force the Redskins to change the name. What it would do, however, is make it impossible to stop other people from using it. In short, Snyder wouldn’t be able to stop anyone else from making merchandise with the team name and undercutting official Redskins gear, or to charge anyone for using the name, changes that would cost Snyder considerable financial damage – “every imaginable loss you can think of,” according to attorneys in the 1999 case – and activists hope that would be enough to change his mind. Snyder, though, is a man of immense pride, and my suspicion is that he would try to eat his losses and keep the name out of spite, at least for the time being.

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell isn’t likely to feel the same way. Goodell has thus far expressed a startling level of indifference toward the controversy, but if the Redskins lose the trademark – and the NFL’s ability to make money off their licensed and trademarked merchandise – that indifference will assuredly fade. Goodell might “understand the affinity for that name” among fans, but he won’t understand – or tolerate – big financial losses. Ideally, Snyder and Goodell would change the name because it’s plainly derogatory. Getting rid of it because using racist terminology is expensive, though, may have to suffice.

President Obama, Senate Democrats and Independents, and many others have come out against the use of the name and have asked the owner to reconsider his position. From the Senate letter:

Dear Commissioner Goodell:

This month, Americans applauded the rapid and decisive reaction from new National Basketball Association Commissioner Adam Silver to the racist remarks of Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Commissioner Silver sent a clear message that racism will not stand in the NBA.

Today, we urge you and the National Football League to send the same clear message as the NBA did: that racism and bigotry have no place in professional sports. It’s time for the NFL to endorse a name change for the Washington, D.C. football team.

The despicable comments made by Mr. Sterling have opened up a national conversation about race relations. We believe this conversation is an opportunity for the NFL to take action to remove the racial slur from the name of one of its marquee franchises.

Professional sports have tremendous power to influence American society and strengthen our communities. From Jesse Owens to Jackie Robinson to Billie Jean King, athletes have often been a driving force for equality and diversity in our nation.

Now is the time for the NFL to act. The Washington, D.C. football team is on the wrong side of history. What message does it send to punish slurs against African Americans while endorsing slurs against Native Americans?

This is a matter of tribal sovereignty – and Indian Country has spoken clearly on this issue. To this point, we have heard from every national Tribal organization, including the National Congress of American Indians, United South and Eastern Tribes, and the Affiliated Tribes of Northwest Indians. These organizations represent more than 2 million Native Americans across the country and more than 300 Tribes with government-to-government relationships with the United States. These organizations have passed resolutions in support of a name change as they find the Washington, D.C. football team name to be racially offensive.  We have heard from tribes across the country, including the Navajo Nation, the largest tribe in the Country, who oppose this name.  To understand this viewpoint, we urge you to watch the video Proud To Be posted on the National Congress of American Indians website.

At the heart of sovereignty for tribes is their identity. Tribes have worked for generations to preserve the right to speak their languages and perform their sacred ceremonies. Many of today’s tribal leaders have parents and grandparents who were punished and prosecuted for practicing their ceremonies or speaking their languages. That is why tribal leaders worked with Congress to enact laws like the American Indian Religious Freedom Act, the Native American Languages Act, the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act.  These are all federal laws intended to protect and respect tribal culture and identity. Yet every Sunday during football season, the Washington, D.C. football team mocks their culture.  

The NFL can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur. We urge the NFL to formally support and push for a name change for the Washington football team.

Sincerely,

47 U.S. Senators

Editor’s Note: Feel free to share other news stories in the comments.


10 comments

  1. Diana in NoVa

    it seemed so unlikely.

    Too bad Snyder has dug his feet in. The tide is turning, just as it did on marriage equality. More and more people will refuse to utter the name of the Washington, DC team because it’s so offensive.

    Well. If Native Americans and progressives prevail with respect to a name change, what might we concentrate on next?

    I know! Hating women! We could start commenting about misogyny, still embedded in American culture after 200-odd years.

  2. 7 Things That Convinced The U.S. Patent Office To Cancel The Redskins Trademark

    … the Native Americans challenging the trademark needed to convince the office: 1. The term was still referring to Native Americans, and 2. It was disparaging toward Native Americans. Here are seven things that persuaded the Patent Office:

    1. A picture of cheerleaders

    2. A picture of the marching band

    3. A press guide

    4. Its similarity to other racial slurs

    5. The dictionary definition of Redskins

    6. The opposition by the National Congress of American Indians

    7. Letters of protest from Native Americans

  3. Seattle Times Bans The Name ‘Redskins’ From Newspaper, Website

    [… sports editor Don Shelton:] “We’re banning the name for one reason: It’s offensive. Far from honoring Native Americans, the term colors an entire race. Many Native Americans consider it an outdated label placed on their people.”

    Shelton said he felt it was time to go further than the policy the paper adopted in the early 1990s, which kept the use of the word “Redskins” to once per article and out of headlines and photo captions. As Shelton pointed out, the Times won’t be the first newspaper to formally ban the Washington pro football team’s name. The Times will still allow “Redskins” to appear in articles that deal with the controversy surrounding the team’s name.

    The term has been officially identified as a racial slur. To continue to use it is offensive.

    I noticed this morning that my newspaper used the name in an article on the sport page and I am going to contact them. “Washington NFL team” works just as well.

  4. Wonkette’s Gary Legum tries to understand Dana Loesch’s Twitter Tirade

    … conservatives don’t care about Native Americans except when they can use them as a cudgel to beat up on the Obama administration. …

    Should we mention to Dana that the three judges who made up the panel that issued this decision were appointed by the Secretary of Commerce under the last Republican president, in 2005 and 2006? Or would that just be gilding the lily?

    History! It’s complicated!

  5. The cancellation has no immediate ramifications for Snyder.

    However, there are really only two options: change the name or kick off another 10 years of litigation and living with the resultant bad press. Certainly, if Snyder wanted to sell the team during that time it would be worth less if its trademark was unprotectable.

    I wonder what would happen if free agents would refuse to sign with the club?

     

Comments are closed.