Washington Redskins Appeal To SCOTUS On Trademark And Seek To Tie Their Case To That Of The Slants
from the teamwork dept
We've talked quite a bit around here about the saga of the Washington Redskins trademark cancellation. The long-held mark by the football team was cancelled after a group of Native Americans petitioned against it, claiming that the team's name was disparaging of their people. After I, dare I say, flip-flopped from cheering on the cancellation to having the team itself change my mind with a delightfully vulgar ruling, which demonstrated that the USPTO grants all kinds of marks on "offensive" terms, the current status of the trademark remains cancelled. Well, the team has now appealed to the US Supreme Court, not only seeking to have its own case reviewed, but also seeking to tie their case to another that we've talked a bit about, that of the Asian music group, The Slants.
The Slants' case is different from the Redskins', with the music group never getting its trademark registration, also based on the notion that its name was disparaging of the very group of people who comprised the band. An appeals court declared the refusal of the band's trademark applications was a First Amendment violation, rightly. But the USPTO has appealed to the Supreme Court. The Redskins, meanwhile, have petitioned the Supreme Court to take the two cases in tandem, arguing that the slight differences between the two would give the court a well-rounded look at the question of whether blocking disparaging trademarks was a constitutional violation.
If this Court grants certiorari in Tam, the Court should grant certiorari before judgment here to consider this case as an ideal and essential companion to Tam. This Court repeatedly has granted certiorari before judgment on those occasions, like this one, when the consideration of complementary companion cases offers the best way to decide important questions of constitutional law. As the government acknowledges,Tam is the short-form reference to The Slants' case. It's a savvy move by the team, seeking to pair its case with that of The Slants, who by any measure ought to be seen as deserving of more sympathy generally than the football club. After all, there does seem to be a difference in texture between a group of Asian people who want to call their band The Slants and a football team owned by Dan Schneider that wants to have an admittedly racist term for Native Americans serve as its team's name. But the question of law is certainly similar enough that I would agree it would make sense to review both cases together. Under the law, either refusing marks based on disparagement is constitutional or it isn't. There's no provision for who is applying for, or holding, the trademark in question.
this case squarely presents the same First Amendment question presented in Tam, a question of undeniable, fundamental national importance.
Another reason it's a savvy move by the Redskins is that The Slants are coming into the SCOTUS review having won its appeal. In their case, it's the USPTO doing the appealing to SCOTUS. The team likely sees the band having an easier time getting a win before the court, having won on appeal, and is arguing that if The Slants' case holds up, then the cancellation of the team's trademark would make no sense.
And the Redskins are right. The team's name may be antiquated, but under the law, the government has no business applying its schizophrenic sense of morality to speech under the First Amendment.
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: first amendment, free speech, offensive, redskins, scotus, slants, supreme court, trademark
Companies: washington redskins
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Section 2(a)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Team Names
The Bitches, could become a really bitching team name?
I mean who could get offended at that?
There can be no special rules for disparaging names in a trademark, all this is about is someone enforcing their moral code on someone else and nothing else.
Everyone, and I mean everyone is a bigoted, lying, hypocritical, racist! It is the very nature of humanity, and freedom of speech is important! USTPO is a Government Organization and therefore has no power to regulate anyone's name period.
All they need to do is say... someone already has this trademarked or the term is to generic or ambiguous, you cannot have it, or no one has this trademarked, you can have it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Team Names
I do discriminate. I don't deny that. It is why I like blue better than red and fresh asparagus as opposed to frozen.
I definitely make use of the first two, the third one...only until I catch myself going along with others...when I stop me and try to stop them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Team Names
This is pretty much where cognitive dissonance comes in for most people.
You cannot got to any location on earth 'anywhere' without seeing someone or something that is discriminatory. And you can fucking bet your life on it too!
Go ahead, keep thinking your shit somehow does not stink! It usually means your shit stinks more than others, when you are dumb enough to believe it!
Only people like me... whom realize that it is impossible to not discriminate in some form or another... understand these things.
Are you pro-life? Then you discriminate against pro-choice!
Are you pro-choice? Then you discriminate against pro-life!
Do you hate any cultures? No? Then you are obviously okay with all cultures including those that are okay with marrying little girls to old men!
Everyone does it, and a lot of the time they "REFUSE" I mean idiotically REFUSE to admit that they somehow have some prejudice of some kind in them!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Team Names
Most of us learned as children that "but everyone else is doing it!" isn't a valid excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Team Names
Your parents were very different from mine if they accepted that excuse.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Team Names
we r going to have to bring back fainting couches...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Team Names
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Obscenity laws are a mess
You get the same things with these trademark laws. Let's say the KKK comes up with a new slogan. It's obviously protected speech, but if a sports team used it then it's no longer protected?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Why waste so much money defending the name?
How many tens of millions of dollars have they wasted over the decades fighting lawsuits like this over, and dealing with bad press over the name as well?
Any sensible business man would have just cut their losses and caved ages ago, especially as the name is unlikely to be viewed as less offensive overtime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why waste so much money defending the name?
Not very good capitalists, are they?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Why waste so much money defending the name?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Denying a Trademark doesn't violate rights
Ironically, denying the trademark would lead to MORE use of the "Redskins" mark--for example the Redskins would not be able to stop knock-off teeshirts, hats, and so on. So denying them a trademark would not prevent the team from using that mark, and many more third parties would also be able to use the mark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Denying a Trademark doesn't violate rights
So the choice is remove all trademarks or quit limiting them based on arbitrary morality.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Denying a Trademark doesn't violate rights
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
other teams up to the chopping block...
Green Bay Packers
Pittsburgh Steelers
SF 49'ers
Cleveland Browns
Dallas Cowboys
Kansas City Chiefs
New England Patriots
Oakland Raiders
Buffalo Bills (Possible)
Minnesota Vikings
New Orleans Saints
Cincinnati Bengals
Seattle Seahawks
Tampa Bay Buccaneers
Houston Texans
and that's JUST in the NFL, not including NHL, NBA, College sports....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: other teams up to the chopping block...
Green Bay Packers"
Heh, as I understand it, "bears" and "packers" are lingo for certain types in the "gay" community. I could totally see objection to those team names gaining traction as being anti-gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]