thirtydaZe
Divided We Fall
http://www.politico.com/story/2014/06/washington-redskins-trademarks-canceled-107990.html
In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the Washington Redskins team name because it was found to be “disparaging” to Native Americans.
“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 patent office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote in a 2-1 decision.
The Redskins team name has become a divisive political issue over the last few years, with even President Barack Obama saying the club should consider changing the name. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats also have pressed owner Dan Snyder to change the name. On the other side, conservatives have either defended keeping the name, arguing that it isn’t disparaging to American Indians, or been silent on the uproar.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid lauded the decision on the Senate floor later on Wednesday, saying that it reinforces the push for the Washington Redskins to change its name.
Reid called the name is a “sad reminder” of the bigotry that Native Americans have faced and said the issue “is extremely important to Native Americans all across the country.” He said Snyder “may be the last person in the world to realize” that the team must change the name, which he called “racist.”
Five Native Americans in 2006 brought the petition, Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., aimed at stripping the half-dozen trademark registrations for the term “Redskins.”
“I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed,” said plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse. “The team’s name is racist and derogatory.”
Critics of the Washington Redskins name who had turned to the trademark office note that the ruling against the team by the patent office does not stop the organization from continuing to use the term. But it could potentially devalue the name because anyone would be able to use the unprotected name, meaning that companies not affiliated with the team could, for instance, print and sell t-shirts, posters and whatever other products they wanted without having to share any revenues with the Redskins’ owners.
Under the trademark office’s decision, the National Football League also will lose several benefits of federal registration of the trademark, including the use of the federal registration symbol.
“The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans,” said Jesse Witten, the lead attorney for the Native Americans. “The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place.”
The Redskins, though, can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., or file a civil action in district court. The trademark office faced a similar case brought against the team in 1992, when, despite ruling in favor of that Native American group in 2008, the board’s decision was eventually thrown out in court on an appeal.
In May, 50 senators — 48 Democrats and two Independents — wrote NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell urging him to change the team’s name. The campaign, spearheaded by Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) and signed by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.), was not circulated amongst Republicans. “The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter read.
The league shot the request down later that day.
Obama also weighed in on the name last October, saying he would consider changing it if he were the owner. “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizeable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” he said.
Meanwhile, Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.) had co-sponsoring a bill last yer to amend the 1946 Lanham Act, the law that prohibits the registration of trademarks that disparage a group. Her legislation would include “Redskins” as a disparaging term if it is contained in a trademark with connotations to the Native American community and thus strip companies and products—such as the Washington Redskins—of their trademark registration.
Norton told POLITICO before the ruling that she decided to pursue a legislative remedy because the patent office has been taking so long to rule in the case.
“What have they been doing all this time?” she said. “The notion that this case would go on this long is totally unacceptable.”
She added, “You’ve heard from the president of the United States, you’ve heard from the majority of the Senate, you’ve from some of us in the House. And I think what you’re going to find is what we find whenever a great human rights issue comes to the fore: You’re going to have more and more voices until it will become impossible for either the Trademark [Office] or [NFL Commissioner Roger] Goodell and [Washington Redskins owner Dan] Snyder to do anything but change the name. And shame on the NFL and Snyder for having to face the music through the law.”
