Washington Redskins trademark dispute

Last updated

The Washington Redskins trademark dispute was a legal effort by Native Americans to define the term "redskin" to be an offensive and pejorative racial slur to deprive the owners of the NFL's Washington Redskins of the ability to maintain federal trademark protection for the name. These efforts had primarily been carried forward in two cases brought before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). While prevailing in the most recent case in which the trademarks were cancelled, petitioners withdrew for further litigation now that the legal issue has become moot due to a decision in another case which found the relevant portion of the trademark law to be an unconstitutional infringement on freedom of speech.

Contents

After decades of defending the name, amidst the removal of many names and images as part of the George Floyd protests combined with pressure from investors and sponsors, the Redskins began the process of changing their name. [1] [2] On July 23, 2020 the team announced that, given that a rebrand typically takes 12 to 18 months, they would be called the Washington Football Team with a block "W" logo for the 2020 and 2021 seasons. [3]

The franchise underwent an extensive search for a new trademark and name, and announced its new branding as the Washington Commanders on February 2, 2022. [4] [5] [6]

Harjo case

The first action in the dispute occurred in 1992, when Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, with six other prominent Native Americans represented by the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis, petitioned the USPTO to cancel the trademark registrations owned by the Redskins' corporate entity of Pro-Football, Inc. They based their lawsuit on the claim that federal trademark law states that certain trademark registrations are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous, contemptuous, or disreputable." The legal battle went on for seven years. In 1999 the PTO judges canceled the federal registration of the mark REDSKINS "on the grounds that the subject marks may disparage Native Americans and may bring them into contempt or disrepute." [7] The owners appealed the decision to a district court in the District of Columbia in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo . The court reversed the USPTO's decision on the grounds of insufficient evidence of disparagement. Subsequent appeals have been rejected on the basis of laches, which means that the specific Native American plaintiffs had pursued their rights in an untimely and delayed manner. In 2009 the Supreme Court declined to take up the case. [8]

Since 1992, the USPTO has rejected eleven applications for other trademarks that included the word redskins, based on the same reason of disparagement. Some of the applications were made by Pro-Football, Inc., including "Washington Redskins Cheerleaders", [9] some for other products. [10] The USPTO rejected an application to register "Redskins Hog Rinds" because it "consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols". [11]

Blackhorse case

A second case was filed, Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., [12] with younger plaintiffs whose standing might not be hindered by laches. [13] On June 18, 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) voted to cancel the six trademarks held by the team in a two-to-one decision that held that the term "redskins" is disparaging to a "substantial composite of Native Americans", and this is demonstrated "by the near complete drop-off in usage of 'redskins' as a reference to Native Americans beginning in the 1960s." [14] [15] The Trademark board asked two questions in determining disparagement: 1) what is the meaning of the mark as it appears in connection with the goods and services in the registrations and 2) is the meaning of the marks one that may be disparaging. The questions are to be answered in the context of the respective dates of registration of each mark. [16]

Evidence of disparagement submitted by the petitioners in the case include the frequent references to "scalping" made by sportswriters for sixty years when reporting the Redskins loss of a game, [17] and passages from movies made from the 1940s to the 1960s using "redskin" to refer to Native Americans as a savage enemy. [18] A linguistics expert for the team unsuccessfully argued that the name is merely a descriptive term no different than other uses of color to differentiate people by race. [19] The TTAB also found that the term "redskin" refers to Native Americans (rather than having an "independent meaning" as the team sometimes claimed) as shown by the costumes worn by both the cheerleaders and marching band from the 1960s until the 1980s, and the native imagery used on the press guides for many years. [20]

In a press release the trademark attorney for the team stated that they were confident that they would once again prevail on appeal, and that today's decision will make no difference in the continued use of the Redskins name. [21] Plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, a social worker and member of the Navajo Nation, said in an interview, "We’ve been through this process for eight years now. We will continue to fight. And, you know, this is not the end for us." [22] Some legal experts have opined that the ruling could stick this time. [23]

The political columnist George Will portrayed the case as an example of overreach by government regulatory agencies, arguing that there was an "absence of general or Native American revulsion" toward the name. [24] A sports columnist for The Washington Post compared the TTAB's actions to "policing speech". [25] The cancellation of Federal registration in fact made no change to the team's use of the name, but withdrew the government from the responsibility to regulate the use of the name by anyone. [26] The team retains other rights under common law, but must enforce them without government assistance. However, in the opinion of one intellectual property law firm, the team "may be hesitant to sue another for infringing its marks because of the risk that a court could possibly determine that the team has no protectable interest in the name because of its disparaging nature". [27]

Appeal of Blackhorse decision

The Washington Redskins filed its appeal in the Blackhorse case on August 14, 2014, stating their belief "that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ignored both federal case law and the weight of the evidence". They also cite infringement of their First Amendment right to free expression. [28] On September 22, 2014 the Native Americans asked that the team's appeal be dismissed because it names them as individuals, which is contrary to federal law, and because the appeal was filed with the U.S. District Court in Alexandria, VA, stating that the Redskins should have filed its case against the patent office in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, DC. [29] In Oct, 2014 Judge Gerald B. Lee rejected the Native American plaintiffs' attempts to have the team's appeal dismissed. [30] The United States Department of Justice entered the case in a limited way by stating that it will defend the constitutionality of the trademark law. [31]

The ACLU filed an Amicus brief [32] stating that while it found the name Redskins repellant, the government should not be able to decide what types of speech are forbidden, and that the provision of the Lanham Act barring the trademark of disparaging terms is unconstitutionally vague in its wording and has not been applied with consistency. [33] On March 23, 2015, the Attorney General's Office filed a brief addressing the Constitutional issues, stating that as commercial speech, the team name and logo are not protected by the First Amendment, and that there is a large number of cases supporting the cancellation of the trademarks. The brief also stated that the court should also reject the claim that the cancellation of trademarks constitutes an illegal taking of valuable property which is barred by the Fifth Amendment. [34] By opening up an inquiry into constitutional issues regarding limits on disparaging speech in order to protect "the unique cultural heritage" of the American Indian population, the case may go well beyond what a football team calls itself. [35] The Navajo Nation filed an amicus curiae brief in support of the decision to cancel the trademarks, due to Pro-Football, Inc. stating in its appeal that individual members of the Navajo Nation such as former chairman Peter McDonald do not find the name disparaging. The brief states that these individuals speak only for themselves, while the tribe’s elected, appointed and traditional leaders speak for the Navajo people and present “unified opposition” to the team name because it is disparaging and has a negative psychological effect on tribal members. [36]

On July 8, 2015, Judge Lee affirmed the decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. [37] Judge Lee denied the team's summary judgment motions challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act and granted the Blackhorse Defendants' summary judgment motions, finding that "the evidence before the Court supports the legal conclusion that...the Redskin Marks consisted of matter that 'may disparage' a substantial composite of Native Americans." The decision does not bar the team from using the marks going forward, and the order itself is subject to further appeal. [38]

Team president Bruce Allen expressed surprise at the decision, and that a summary judgement was made by the judge based upon the evidence submitted rather than proceeding to a trial. While the team continues to have certain rights to its trademarks, it must take action to protect those rights individually. The cancellation of federal registration of the trademarks means that the government will no longer take any action against anyone else using the name or logo, such as blocking counterfeit goods from being imported into the country. [39]

On October 30, 2015 Pro-Football, Inc. filed its appeal [40] with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. In addition to maintaining the validity of all the arguments rejected by both the TTAB and the first appeal, [41] the team has added a list of offensive names that have been given trademarks, thus claiming unequal treatment. The names cited as offensive are mainly sexual or scatological, but do include the racial terms "yid", "dago", "gringo" and "negro". [42] [43] Eighteen law professors have jointly filed an amicus brief in the case stating that the relevant section of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional intrusion into freedom of expression, and rejecting the TTAB opinion that trademarks are government speech not protected by the first amendment. [44] Ron Katz, sports attorney and Chair Emeritus of the Institute of Sports Law and Ethics at Santa Clara University, expects the team to win its appeal based upon constitutional grounds, while describing the trademark as "repugnant". [45]

These cases prompted a range of opinions from law professors.

Supreme Court review

Both the USPTO and Pro-Football, Inc. requested a review by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) of the same legal issue, the constitutionality of banning a disparaging trademark. The USPTO appealed the decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which found in December 2015 that part of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional. That case ( Matal v. Tam ) involved the denial of a trademark for an Asian-American rock band, "The Slants". The National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA) filed an amicus brief supporting the constitutionality of the Lanham Act, NAPABA President Cyndie Chang stating “Racial slurs should not be recognized as commercial speech through federally-protected trademarks. "Freedom of speech does not require that the government allow racially derogatory terms to be trademarked so that a trademark owner can have exclusive rights to use and monetize such terms." [50] On June 19, 2017 the court ruled unanimously in favor of Tam, the majority opinion stating "The disparagement clause violates the First Amendment's Free Speech Clause. Contrary to the Government’s contention, trademarks are private, not government speech." [51] Both the Native American petitioners and the Justice Department have withdrawn from any further litigation now that the Supreme Court has rendered the legal issue moot. [52]

While team owner Daniel Snyder expressed the opinion that the court decision was a victory for the team, the executive director of the NCAI asserted that the name remains a slur, and the decision that grants it First Amendment protection does not alter any of the arguments against its continued use. [53]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States Patent and Trademark Office</span> United States national patent bureau

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is an agency in the U.S. Department of Commerce that serves as the national patent office and trademark registration authority for the United States. The USPTO's headquarters are in Alexandria, Virginia, after a 2005 move from the Crystal City area of neighboring Arlington, Virginia.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">United States trademark law</span>

A trademark is a word, phrase, or logo that identifies the source of goods or services. Trademark law protects a business' commercial identity or brand by discouraging other businesses from adopting a name or logo that is "confusingly similar" to an existing trademark. The goal is to allow consumers to easily identify the producers of goods and services and avoid confusion.

Redskin is a slang term for Native Americans in the United States and First Nations in Canada. The term redskin underwent pejoration through the 19th to early 20th centuries and in contemporary dictionaries of American English, it is labeled as offensive, disparaging, or insulting. Although the term has almost disappeared from contemporary use, it remains as the name of many sports teams. The most prominent was the Washington NFL team. After decades of resistance to change by the owners, management, and fans, major sponsors responded to calls to end systemic racism in the wake of the murder of George Floyd by advocating a name change. The new name Washington Commanders was announced on February 2, 2022. While the usage by other teams has been declining steadily, 37 high schools in the United States continue to be Redskins. School administrators and alumni assert that their use of the name is honoring their local tradition and not insulting to Native Americans.

Leo D. Stoller is an American self-styled "intellectual property entrepreneur" based in suburban Chicago, Illinois. Stoller claimed rights to a large inventory of well-known trademarks and engaged in the assertive enforcement of those alleged trademark rights, threatening infringement action against people and companies who attempt to use similar marks.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) is an administrative tribunal within the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The TTAB is empowered to determine the right to register a trademark. It has no authority to determine the right to use one, nor broader questions of infringement, unfair competition, damages or injunctive relief. The TTAB decides ex parte appeals from decisions by USPTO Examiners denying registration of marks, and inter partes proceedings challenging the registration of marks. Decisions of the TTAB may be appealed to a United States district court, or to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

<i>Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo</i> U.S. trademark law case

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44, is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia considered the decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparaging to Native Americans. The Court of Appeals did not actually reach the merits of the TTAB's decision; it sent the case back to the trial court for consideration of a procedural issue.

Disparagement, in United States trademark law, was a statutory cause of action which permitted a party to petition the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel a trademark registration that "may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt or disrepute". In 2017, the Supreme Court struck down the disparagement provision as unconstitutional in Matal v. Tam.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Suzan Shown Harjo</span> Cheyenne-Holdulgee Muscogee activist

Suzan Shown Harjo is an American advocate for Native American rights. She is a poet, writer, lecturer, curator, and policy advocate who has helped Native peoples recover more than one million acres (4,000 km²) of tribal lands. After co-producing the first American Indian news show in the nation for WBAI radio while living in New York City, and producing other shows and theater, in 1974 she moved to Washington, D.C., to work on national policy issues. She served as Congressional liaison for Indian affairs in the President Jimmy Carter administration and later as president of the National Council of American Indians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patriot Guard Riders</span> American nonprofit organization

The Patriot Guard Riders (PGR) is an organization based in the United States whose members attend the funerals of members of the U.S. military and first responders at the invitation of a decedent's family.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Concurrent use registration</span> Federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties

A concurrent use registration, in United States trademark law, is a federal trademark registration of the same trademark to two or more unrelated parties, with each party having a registration limited to a distinct geographic area. Such a registration is achieved by filing a concurrent use application and then prevailing in a concurrent use proceeding before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ("TTAB"), which is a judicial body within the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO"). A concurrent use application may be filed with respect to a trademark which is already registered or otherwise in use by another party, but may be allowed to go forward based on the assertion that the existing use can co-exist with the new registration without causing consumer confusion.

Fucking Machines is a pornographic website founded in 2000 that features video and photographs of women engaged in autoerotic sexual stimulation with penetrative sex-machines and sex toys. Based in San Francisco, California, the site is operated by Kink.com. Web entrepreneur Peter Acworth launched Fucking Machines on September 25, 2000, as his company's second website after Kink.com. Devices shown on the site were created with the intent to bring women authentic orgasms. Performers were instructed to allow themselves to be recorded experiencing pleasure.

<i>Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America</i>

Wrenn v. Boy Scouts of America, No. 3:03-cv-04057, was a case before the United States District Court for the Northern District of California; Wrenn asked for the cancellation of federal trademark registrations of the Boy Scouts of America.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Washington Redskins name controversy</span> Controversy involving the name and logo of the Washington Redskins NFL team

The Washington Redskins name controversy involved the name and logo previously used by the Washington Commanders, a National Football League (NFL) franchise located in the Washington metropolitan area. In the 1960s, the team's longtime name—the Redskins—and the associated logo began to draw criticism from Native American groups and individuals. The topic, part of the larger Native American mascot controversy, began receiving widespread public attention in the 1990s. In 2020, the team responded to economic pressure in the wake of the George Floyd protests by retiring the name and logo. The team called itself the "Washington Football Team" before rebranding as the Commanders in 2022.

Simon Tam is an American author, musician, activist, and entrepreneur. He is best known as the bassist and founder of the Asian American dance-rock band, the Slants, who won their case against the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office at the United States Supreme Court. The case, Matal v. Tam, was a landmark legal battle that clarified First Amendment rights in trademark law. The court ruled unanimously in Tam's favor, holding that trademark registrations may not be rejected under the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act (1946) since that would be considered viewpoint discrimination; this includes, as in Tam's case, trademarks using such language filed by members of minority groups who wish to reclaim slurs that would have been previously denied.

Amanda Blackhorse is a social worker and member of the Navajo people who is known for her work as an activist on the Washington Redskins name controversy. She is the lead plaintiff in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Lens.com, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc., 686 F.3d 1376, is a decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit which ruled that when software merely acts as a "conduit" for providing services over the internet, and does not have an independent value per se, it does not constitute a "good" being "sold or transported in commerce" for the purposes of establishing whether or not a trademark for "computer software" has been "abandoned" under 15 U.S.C. § 1064 and 15 U.S.C. § 1127

Matal v. Tam, 582 U.S. 218 (2017) is a Supreme Court of the United States case that affirmed unanimously the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks that may "disparage" persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols with the United States Patent and Trademark Office violated the First Amendment.

Iancu v. Brunetti, No. 18–302, 588 U.S. ___ (2019), is a Supreme Court of the United States case related to the registration of trademarks under the Lanham Act. It decided 6–3 that the provisions of the Lanham Act prohibiting registration of trademarks of "immoral" or "scandalous" matter is unconstitutional by permitting the United States Patent & Trademark Office to engage in viewpoint discrimination, which violates the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment.

Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 589 U.S. ___ (2019), was a United States Supreme Court case from the October 2019 term.

Patent and Trademark Office v. Booking.com B. V., 591 U.S. ___ (2020), was a United States Supreme Court case dealing with the trademarkability of a generic terms appended with a top-level domain (TLD) specifier. The Court ruled that such names can be trademarked unless the existing combination of term and TLD is considered to have a generic meaning to consumers.

References

  1. ↑ McDonald, Scott (July 1, 2020). "Washington Redskins Urged to Lose Name, or Millions in Sponsorships". Newsweek . Retrieved July 3, 2020.
  2. ↑ Clarke, Liz (July 2, 2020). "FedEx calls on Redskins to change name following investors' demands on sponsors". Washington Post.
  3. ↑ Carpenter, Les; Maske, Mark (July 23, 2020). "NFL franchise to go by 'Washington Football Team' this season, delaying permanent name change". The Washington Post.
  4. ↑ Wright, Jason (January 4, 2022). "Presidents Brief: Why Wolves won't work (and a date to save)". Washington Commanders. Retrieved February 2, 2022.
  5. ↑ Jhabvala, Nicki (January 4, 2022). "Washington Football Team to reveal name, identity on Feb. 2". Washington Post. ISSN   0190-8286 . Retrieved January 4, 2022.
  6. ↑ "Washington Football Team unveils new name: The Commanders". NBC News. Retrieved 2022-02-02.
  7. ↑ Davin L Seamon (8 July 2014). "Trademark Sensitivity: Learning from the Washington Redskins". The National Law Review. Steptoe & Johnson PLLC. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
  8. ↑ Warren Richey (November 16, 2009). "Washington Redskins can keep team name; Supreme Court refuses native Americans' suit". The Christian Science Monitor. Retrieved November 15, 2015.
  9. ↑ Theresa Vargas (January 28, 2014). "From pork rinds to cheerleaders, the trademark office rejects the word 'Redskins'". The Washington Post.
  10. ↑ Theresa Vargas (January 6, 2014). "Agency rejects trademark of 'Redskins Hog Rinds,' calling term 'derogatory'". The Washington Post.
  11. ↑ "United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Office Action (Official Letter) About Applicant's Trademark Application". December 29, 2013. Retrieved 2014-01-08.
  12. ↑ "United States Patent and Trademark Office" . Retrieved October 16, 2013.
  13. ↑ Erik Brady (May 10, 2013). "New generation of Native Americans challenges Redskins". USA Today. Retrieved May 10, 2013.
  14. ↑ KEN BELSON; EDWARD WYATT (June 18, 2014). "U.S. Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark Registration". The New York Times.
  15. ↑ "USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92046185". United States Patent and Trademark Office. June 18, 2014. Retrieved June 18, 2014.
  16. ↑ DeMarte, Luke W. (18 June 2014). "Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Cancels Six Redskins Trademark Registrations". The National Law Review. Michael Best & Friedrich LLP. Retrieved 31 July 2014.
  17. ↑ Lindsey Adler (June 18, 2014). "60 Years Of Shocking Redskins Headlines:A sampling of violent wordplay". BuzzFeed.
  18. ↑ Dan Steinberg (June 18, 2014). "Here are some of the movie clips cited in the Redskins trademark case". The Washington Post.
  19. ↑ Jay Caspian Kang (June 18, 2014). "Dan Snyder and the Redskins Take a Loss". The New Yorker.
  20. ↑ Judd Legum (June 18, 2014). "7 Things That Convinced The U.S. Patent Office To Cancel The Redskins Trademark". ThinkProgress.
  21. ↑ "Statement By Bob Raskopf, Trademark Attorney For The Washington Redskins" (PDF). June 18, 2014.
  22. ↑ "Meet the Navajo Activist Who Got the Washington Redskins' Trademark Revoked: Amanda Blackhorse". Democracy Now!. 2014-06-19. Retrieved 2014-06-19.
  23. ↑ Pete Williams, "Redskins Ruling Could Stick This Time, Say Trademark Experts", MSNBC (June 18, 2014).
  24. ↑ George F. Will (June 27, 2014). "The government decided that 'Redskins' bothers you". The Washington Post.
  25. ↑ Sally Jenkins (June 18, 2014). "The team and NFL should change the Redskins name, not the federal government". The Washington Post.
  26. ↑ Matt Bruenig (June 20, 2014). "The myth of Big Government in the Redskins trademark case: This is government inaction, not government action". The Week.
  27. ↑ "U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Finds Redskins Trademark Disparaging… Again: Five Things to Know About This Decision". Womble Carlyle Sandridge & Rice, LLP. June 18, 2014.
  28. ↑ Erik Brady; Megan Finnerty (August 14, 2014). "Washington Redskins appeal decision to cancel trademark". USA Today Sports.
  29. ↑ Ian Shapira (September 22, 2014). "Native Americans seek dismissal of Redskins lawsuit against them in trademark case". The Washington Post.
  30. ↑ "Judge suggests it's OK for Redskins to sue Indians - Associated Press - The Buffalo News". Archived from the original on 2015-02-16.
  31. ↑ Ian Shapira (January 9, 2015). "Justice Department intervenes in Redskins trademark protection lawsuit". The Washington Post.
  32. ↑ "Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse - ACLU Amicus Brief" . Retrieved March 10, 2015.
  33. ↑ Andrew Johnson (March 9, 2015). "ACLU Begrudgingly Comes to the Redskins' Defense". The National Review.
  34. ↑ "Brief supporting cancellation of Redskins trademarks". Richmond Times-Dispatch. March 24, 2015.
  35. ↑ Lyle Denniston (January 13, 2015). "Constitution Check: Is the First Amendment on the side of a pro football team's name?". National Constitution Center. Retrieved January 14, 2015.
  36. ↑ Noel Lyn Smith (February 23, 2016). "Navajo attorneys file brief against Redskins trademark". Albuquerque Journal.
  37. ↑ "Memorandum Opinion and Order, Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, et al" (PDF). Retrieved July 8, 2015.
  38. ↑ "Judge upholds ruling against Redskins trademark; team can appeal". ESPN. Associated Press. July 8, 2015.
  39. ↑ Chris Lingebach (July 8, 2015). "Bruce Allen 'Surprised' by Ruling to Uphold 'Redskins' Trademark Cancellation". CBS DC.
  40. ↑ "No. 15-1874" (PDF). October 30, 2015. Retrieved November 3, 2015.
  41. ↑ Scott Flaherty (November 3, 2015). "Seeking to Salvage Trademark, Redskins' Lawyers Get Dirty". The Am Law Daily.
  42. ↑ Ira Shapira (November 3, 2015). "'Take Yo Panties Off' defense: Redskins cite other protected products in trademark appeal". The Washington Post.
  43. ↑ Barry Petchesky (November 3, 2015). "The Skins' Latest Court Filing Is Comically Vulgar". Deadspin.
  44. ↑ Matthew Albright (November 9, 2015). "Widener profs: Gov't can't revoke Redskins' trademark". The News Journal.
  45. ↑ Ron Katz (November 20, 2015). "Major NFL Match-up: Disparaging Speech Versus The First Amendment". Forbes.
  46. ↑ Megan M. Carpenter (May 4, 2016). "Trademark Law Promotes Fair Competition, Not Morality". The New York Times.
  47. ↑ Christine Haight Farley (May 4, 2016). "Trademark Restrictions Permit Free Speech Without Approving Offensive Speech". The New York Times.
  48. ↑ Sonia Katyal (May 4, 2016). "Trademark Law Promotes Fair Competition, Not Morality". The New York Times.
  49. ↑ Ashutosh Bhagwat (May 4, 2016). "Trademark Law Promotes Fair Competition, Not Morality". The New York Times.
  50. ↑ "NAPABA disagrees with band in trademark case". Asian American Press. January 21, 2017.
  51. ↑ "15-1293 Martal V. Tam" (PDF). Retrieved 19 June 2017.
  52. ↑ Ian Shapira; Ann E. Marimow (June 29, 2017). "Washington Redskins win trademark fight over the team's name". The Washington Post. Retrieved 30 June 2017.
  53. ↑ Jacqueline Pata; Ray Halbritter (July 26, 2017). "The NFL Needs to Stop Promoting a Racial Slur". Time. Time, Inc. Retrieved July 27, 2017.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.