ILNews

IndyBar: Lessons in Timing from the Washington Redskins Trademark Cancellation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By Constance R. Lindman, SmithAmundsen LLC, and Kaylea Weiler, SmithAmundsen LLC

This article was originally posted on the IndyBar Intellectual Property Section’s webpage at indybar.org/interest-groups/intellectual-property. To subscribe to news based on your practice area and/or interests, update your member profile at indybar.org/account.

Last week, upon petition by five Native American individuals, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) cancelled six trademarks bearing the word “Redskin” registered to the Washington, D.C., based NFL team between 1967 and 1990. Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act allows the USPTO to refuse or cancel registration for marks which “disparage persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute.” Challenges under Section 2(a) may be brought “at any time.”

The TTAB indicated that the relevant inquiry is not whether the term is disparaging in the eyes of the American public as a whole, but whether the referenced group finds the term to be disparaging “as of the various dates of registration of the involved marks.” The TTAB evaluated extensive historical evidence (newspaper articles, television programs, letters of protest, dictionaries) from the relevant time periods to evaluate Native American perception of the term “redskin.” However, the board disregarded evidence that the original owner of the team (then the Boston Redskins), chose the name to honor the team’s Native American head coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, because the owner’s intent in using the mark is not relevant.

The TTAB ultimately found that the term “redskin” was and is commonly identified as a derogatory racial slur, and is therefore disparaging. One judge dissented.

What now for the Washington Redskins?

The controversy surrounding the trademarks and logos associated with D.C.’s beloved football team is not new. So why did it take so long for the trademark to be cancelled, and can the Redskins organization overcome the decision on appeal? The answer is complex and uncertain.

The very same issues have been in litigation since 1992 when seven other Native American individuals brought a nearly identical petition in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96. The TTAB initially granted the petition and cancelled the registrations in 1999 under Section 2(a), but the DC District Court reversed, finding that (1) there was insufficient evidence to find that “redskins” is disparaging, and (2) the equitable principle of laches applied.

With respect to the laches defense, the District Court held that, because the first Redskin trademark registered in 1967 and the petitioners had not contested such registration until 1992, they had waited too long to seek redress. However, in 2005 the US Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit overturned that decision, noting that one of the Harjo petitioners was only one year old when the first registration issued. It held that any evaluation of laches as to that petitioner must begin as of the time he reached majority, in 1984. Without addressing the District Court’s finding on the issue of whether the mark is “disparaging,” the DC Circuit remanded the case for determination of whether the youngest petitioner had “slumbered on his rights.” See Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F. 3d 44. On remand, the District Court again found that laches applied, because eight years had passed from the time the petitioner reached the age of majority to the time the petition for cancellation was filed in 1992. That decision essentially ended the litigation for the seven Harjo petitioners.

The 2005 appellate decision, though often overlooked, is an important aspect of this legal drama, because even though the Redskins organization had prevailed in retaining its trademark rights in the Harjo suit, the decision that laches cannot be invoked against a petitioner until he has attained majority has allowed for the filing of yet another petition by a new group of presumably younger individuals.

The US Circuit courts are split on the issue of whether the principle of laches applies to Section 2(a) cancellations which otherwise may be brought “at any time.” Therefore, choice of venue would be important to any party opposing registration or challenging a USPTO cancellation decision. In its 2005 opinion in Harjo, the DC Circuit officially took the position that the statutory language “at any time” does not bar a defense of laches, but such a defense must be separately evaluated as to each individual petitioner. The court pondered, “Why should laches bar all Native Americans from challenging Pro-Football’s ‘Redskins’ trademark registrations because some Native Americans may have slept on their rights?”

Since the TTAB cancellation decision issued last week, the owner of the Washington Redskins has made it clear that the organization intends to continue using the trademarks. The Washington Redskins have filed an appeal and the TTAB has suspended its decision pending the appeal. The Redskins organization is likely banking upon its earlier victory in Harjo, where the District Court of DC held there was insufficient evidence to find the marks were “disparaging.” As the dissenting judge in the 2014 TTAB decision noted, the evidence has not substantially changed from the time of the 2003 District Court ruling and the 2014 TTAB cancellation decision. At this point, the fate of the “Redskins” trademark remains a “coin toss.”•

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT