Navajo Nation's Trademark Suit Against Urban Outfitters Proceeds; But Should It?
from the trademark-nation dept
Alright, this one has me more than a bit puzzled. We've written here before about Urban Outfitters, which has previously been on the receiving end of intellectual property disputes in the form of the company's use of famous Obama iconography and for trying to inject a bit of humor into its coffee offerings. This time around, however, the clothing retailer is facing a lawsuit from the Navajo Nation for selling clothing and merchandise with patterns inspired by Native American designs and including the word "Navajo" or "Navaho" in the offerings.The clothing chain will ask a federal judge in Santa Fe, N.M., on Wednesday to limit how far back in time the tribe can go to seek money over the company's products, which included everything from necklaces, jackets and pants to a flask and underwear with the "Navajo" name.The tribe isn't specifying exactly how much it's seeking, but considering it is asking for all the profits from the relevant merchandise on some of the products in question, and $1,000 per day per item on others, we're talking about millions of dollars here. The tribe is arguing that Urban Outfitters is violating the tribe's federal and state trademarks on its name, as well as the Indian Arts and Crafts Act, which was designed to prevent the sale of goods designed to fool customers into thinking that they were actually made by Native Americans. Let's deal with these in reverse order.
The tribe's lawsuit alleging trademark violations has been working its way through the courts for more than three years. Efforts to settle the case featuring two unlikely foes have failed as the tribe seeks vast sums of money from the company that also owns the Anthropologie and Free People brands.
Urban Outfitters is the kind of retailer you find commonly in shopping districts all over the place. The company has never attempted to draw any affiliation with Native Americans in the past. Navajo branded clothing is branded as such as an homage to the inspiration for the design. The Navajo Nation has put forth a survey showing that 40% of consumers were confused by the use, but Urban Outfitters is expected to attack the validity of the survey. Keep in mind that the Arts and Crafts Act is entirely about fooling customers into thinking that the goods were made by Native Americans, rather than having anything to do with appropriating the name of the tribe. It's the kind of thing that, even if this were an actual valid problem, could be fixed by Urban Outfitters putting up a sign that said, "These products were not made by Native Americans," or something of that nature. But that isn't what the tribe actually wants. They want licensing from the trademark of their name.
As for the trademark in question, Urban Outfitters claims that "Navajo" is generic and that the tribe has abandoned the trademark first granted in the 1940s. The Navajo Nation pushed back with some history of the term Navajo, which was apparently a derogatory term invented by Spanish settlers. The claim is that the inventive nature of the word is a rebuttal on it being generic.
The Nation disputes the allegation of genericness. It asserts that the NAVAJO® mark is inherently distinctive as either fanciful, arbitrary or suggestive. According to the Nation, the mark is a fanciful because the term “Navajo” is an archaic, invented name, and fanciful when applied to the classes of goods of jewelry, clothing and accessories. Ironically, the Nation explained that the term was originally a derogative term used by the Spanish when referring to members of the Nation. The Nation members themselves refer to themselves as Diné. Accordingly, NAVAJO® is an invented term and fanciful when applied to the goods sold by the Nation.I'm just not sure how a trademark on "Navajo" is substantively different than allowing for a trademark on "American", "Mexican" or "Canadian." It's the name of a people, nationality, or ethnicity. I'm struggling to see how such terms on their own are not generic.
In the alternative, the mark is arbitrary when used to describe these goods. Finally, the Nation contends that the mark is at the very least suggestive, because it suggests or requires an extra inference that goods sold are associated with the Nation.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: navajo, trademark
Companies: urban outfitters
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
We Get This Sort Of Ownership Mentality Among New Zealand Māori Too
What they need to understand is, the only way to win this game is to refuse to play.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: We Get This Sort Of Ownership Mentality Among New Zealand Māori Too
As you say, culture can't be owned but when some unrelated person comes along and packages it in a fixed medium, they then assert ownership rights (because we let them get away with calling it "property!") over it and prevent the tribe, etc., from making any money off their own culture. That was my interpretation of what I saw there and it really struck me. What a rotten thing to do to anyone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Get to know your culture, your indigenous culture, you fucked them and killed them and now you cry because they want to retain the little they have left.
This isn't copyright, or IP, it's an obliterated nation holding on to it's heritage.
Leave it alone
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hi there, friend. Quick question: are you a stupid person? Because calling me arrogant for referring to The Navajo Nation, a group created by the Diné, so-named by the Diné in official government papers (such as what this entire fucking post was a bout), and whose OWN GOVERNMENT EMBLAZONS ON THEIR OWN GOD DAMNED POLICE VEHICLES is about as fucking stupid a comment as I can think of.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Navajo_Nation_Police
So if have a problem with the Navajo Nation calling itself the Navajo Nation, go fucking take it up with Window Rock and leave me the hell out of it....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
the term “Navajo” is an archaic, invented name,
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
They're allowed to use both names, of course. You're just not allowed to call me ignorant for calling them by one of the two names to which they refer themselves....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Um, what?!?!? I said the following in the comment to which you replied: "They're allowed to use both names, of course."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Don't give in to the trolls.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Sorry about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Which is a point that needs to be made. THEY are allowed to use both names. ANYONE ELSE is NOT. If you aren't Navajo, you may ONLY use the term Navajo. They're also REALLY strict on enforcing the Art and Crafts Act. I live in the heart of Navajo country and have run into that in the course of business a couple of times. You can't have anything that remotely suggests "Native American" for sale, even with signs proclaiming them as not Native American. You can't resell the stuff, either, unless you've specifically worked out a contract with the tribe. They have absolute power in the local area in that regards, so it'll be interesting to see how this lawsuit goes to see how far that power reaches.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Actually I can call them whatever I want.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
And all very old names are "Archaic", which means very old.
Dumbest post of the week.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: wishing to identify as Diné
So if they don’t identify with the names “Navajo” or “Navaho”, why should they have trademark ownership of those names?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: More like hiding its heritage
No one is taking anything from these people. If anything, they're celebrating them and their heritage.
This is nothing but a selfish money grab. It's the exact same thing they've been doing for generations to the smaller communities around them. They've bankrupted every school and store within 100 miles of their land because judges are happy to bend over to them no matter how ridiculous their claims are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I've never killed anyone, you sanctimonious, politically-correct asshole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Lisboeta on Feb 12th, 2016 @ 2:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Lisboeta on Feb 12th, 2016 @ 2:06am
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
It isn't the general idea of 'Haka' that they own, but specific ones. So if people want to create new hakas they can. Sounds quite normal when it is put this way.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've often pictured that noble tribe hard at work as they built my cousin's SUV... his Mazda Navajo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is there a copyright on the word squaw?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wonder how the story would go if they where making Jewish hipster panties?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Headline question
Next question?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is what happens when you try to apply IP and litigation-happy RIAA tactics to everything.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Big versus Little company...which is it that always wins, again?
But as for stealing their styles... Well, if I went back and made a imitation of a Macy's purse from perhaps 1902, the government wouldn't see the difference. I would still be guilty of the major crime of creating a knock-off under trademark protection. It isn't relevant how old the style is, only was it trademarked at the time.
But Urban Outfitters is a big company; and since the trademark law was made to help big companies exclude little competitors from the market...well let's just say I don't see this going in favor of the Diné, no matter what the law is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Big versus Little company...which is it that always wins, again?
Is Urban Outfitters arguing that it isn't trademark infringement because the designs are old?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]