Seems the US Patent Office has ruled that the Redskins’ name is “disparaging of Native Americans”, and the trademark must be canceled.
Not sure how I feel about this. I get why people don’t like the name, but I don’t like the government trying to force a name change.
The government can’t force a name change.
All a cancellation would do would prevent them from asserting a registered trademark in court.
There is some question whether they could still assert rights in an unregistered trademark.
Even if they could do neither, they still wouldn’t have to change their name. They would just be unable to stop unauthorized uses – like bootleg T-shirts and other branded goods. Theoretically they would also not be able to stop another football team from picking up the name but that’s not likely anyway.
There’s an existing rule that you can’t trademark something offensive/disparaging, so the only real question is if the Redskisn trademarks properly fit within those guidelines and whether the plaintiffs brought this in the appropriate manner. I believe previous incidents where this has happened the Redskins won on appeal on technical grounds.
The real pressure will be that this will represent lost revenue for the entire NFL (other than the Cowboys) as they have a merchandise revenue sharing agreement. Which could start to bring more pressure on Snyder. I’m guessing like most American professional sports leagues the NFL itself could force a name change by some vote of the ownership and actions along those lines.
The issue of “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter” or putative trademarks that “disparage … Persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt , or disrepute” occasionally comes up.
This is significant. Apparel sales and branding are a pretty substantial part of a team’s, and the league’s, business model. Keeping the team’s name will now mean a serious financial hit for Snyder, as he loses control of licensing revenue.
It’s already a done deal. Link
Wow, just wow.
Quite frankly I don’t care what their name is, and the government can’t just force them to change the name. But can’t you see that losing a trademark means they lose a ton of money? Seems a bit coercive to me. Now if the NFL wanted to force a change then so be it.
Recent cases include:
Stop the Islamisation of America
The Slants – a rock band founded by an Asian American
Sex Rod – parody of Red Sox
Khoran – brand of alcoholic beverage
Asshole Repellant – novelty gift
1-800-Jack-Off – phone sex
“Fok’n Hurts” – stun gun
“Big Effin Garage” (allowed)
$#!+
Heeb – clothing
Dykes on Bikes – motorcycle club (eventually got registered)
Would they lose “a ton of money”? Perhaps. One might assume so, but it’s not necessarily the case, especially with respect to this particular situation. It’s not like some other football team can substitute itself just by calling itself the Redskins.
It’s not like they can just show up to play and everyone would think it’s the same thing. Certainly not a the same as two novelty gifts called “Asshole Repellant” that are easily substituted for each other.
In any case, 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1052(a) prohibits the Patent and Trademark Office from registering a disparaging trademark.
So the question for the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board simply becomes whether it’s disparaging or not. That’s all the law allows them to consider. Not how many tons of money the Redskins might lose.
If the NFL and all its teams were suddenly unable to enforce all their trademarks then yes they would all suffer serious losses. It’s not entirely clear to me, however, how big an impact the inability to enforce these six Redskins trademarks at issue would have on the Redskins.
Certainly there would be some degree of loss to bootleggers. Whether that in the circumstances would put Snyder out of business I don’t know.
Either way, the TTAB isn’t allowed consider that.
Frankly I suspect that the other NFL team owners would love the government force Snyder to change the name without their having to take action themselves.
By the way, this isn’t necessarily over as a legal matter. There can be an appeal to a federal circuit court.
The Redskins won such an appeal in 2009 based on the doctrine of laches – the court ruled that the plaintiffs had waited too many years to bring their claims.
This time, the plaintiffs are younger, so presumably laches won’t be an issue on appeal.
No another team can’t just show up, but now I can start making all sorts of stuff with the name on it. I really don’t care if Snyder loses a ton of money, but this sets a precedent for others to use.
Oddly enough when I was in Latvia a few weeks ago the company Heeb came up, they didn’t know what was so wrong with it as it’s a normal word to them though I don’t remember what it means off the top of my head.
What kind of precedent do you mean?
I suppose it’s a precedent that disparaging marks can lose their registration. But that seems to be the intent of Section 2(a) in the first place.
And of course, as I said, I don’t know what impact loss of registration under Section 2(a) would have on Snyder’s common law (unregistered) trademark rights.
My problem with all of this is that actual Native Americans don’t seem to care one way or the other about the “Redskins” name. It’s whites (like Harry Reid) who get upset about it, very nearly without exception.
I think the Redskins would have a good shot at winning an appeal, because it hasn’t been proven that the name is in fact offensive.
Doesn’t seem to make sense to me. Folks are upset over the use of the name, and so now, by revoking the trademark, it incentivizes others to use it! 
Seems kinda backward.
That’s a pretty broad and flat statement. It would be more accurate to say views are mixed and nuanced among the various communities. Some of the strongest protests have come from Indians, some others think it’s a point of pride.
Broad, flat, and untrue as well, besides being a tawdry political swipe.
Do you really think that can be assessed objectively? A term is offensive if a large part of society deems it to be.
The petitioners who sought cancellation are all Native Americans. A huge portion of the TTAB’s ruling is devoted to examining the evidence of whether it’s offensive or not.
Perhaps they are wrong, but I’m not sure what your assertion they it hasn’t been proven is based on.
It takes away a particular party’s exclusive rights in the term, so presumably that would devalue it.
It doesn’t incentivize others’ use any more than such use use is already incentivized. It just doesn’t let you use the law to stop any of those uses.
The name has been trademarked for a long time, was this rule in place then? As for precedent, what if in a few years some group comes along and says they don’t like “Dykes on Bikes”, which seems to have gone through. Or any other name that at some point in time becomes “disparaging” to some group.
It incentivizes others to make an effort to screw Snyder. If such incentive were needed, that is.
Look for all the T-shirt people to crank out volumes of new Washington Redskins stuff, with all sorts of creative additions and variations.