Access practice tools, as well as industry leading news, customizable alerts, dockets, and primary content, including a comprehensive collection of case law, dockets, and regulations. Leverage...
American Indians struggling to get the Washington Redskins football team to change its name may lose the battle in U.S. courts, but that doesn’t mean the fight is over.
Amanda Blackhorse, the American Indian activist who was the lead plaintiff in the original lawsuit demanding that that the Redskins’ trademark registrations be canceled on the grounds that the term is a disparaging ethnic slur, told Bloomberg BNA that pressure on the football team will not subside, even though the legal fight may be over.
“I think that because this is the end of an 11-year litigation on our end, we have to figure out some other avenue,” said Blackhorse, a Navajo woman who has led protests denouncing the Redskins’ name and those of other professional sports teams with American Indian mascots.
“Whether it’s going after the sponsors and continuing to encourage the public to go after this, putting pressure on NFL, because they have the power to change the name—what people can count on is that pressure won’t stop from Native people,” Blackhorse said.
The Washington Redskins asked a federal appeals court June 21 to overturn a lower court’s decision canceling its trademark registrations for being disparaging following the U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week that the ban on disparaging trademarks in U.S. law is unconstitutional ( Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse , 4th Cir. App., No. 15-01874, Supplemental brief filed 6/21/17 ).
The Supreme Court ruled in Matal v. Tam that the ban on trademarks disparaging to racial or ethnic groups was an unconstitutional violation of free speech. That case involved an Asian America rock band called the Slants—a slur for Asians— who wanted to register its name.
Blackhorse pointed out that both the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and a federal district court, had agreed to cancel the Redskins’ trademarks, agreeing that “Redskins” is a disparaging term for American Indians. But the Supreme Court’s ruling means that disparaging terms can no longer be banned under the Lanham Act, the main U.S. trademark law.
“At this point, I don’t know if there’s much recourse for us. The Lanham Act that was used in the Tam case was sort of the foundation of our argument for our case,” said Blackhorse.
The next best chance that Blackhorse and her supporters have to keep the Redskins’ case alive in the courts is to make a case for oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, where the Redskins appeal had been on hold pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Slants case.
The appeals court has asked the parties to respond on the need for oral argument by July 3.
“That oral argument is unnecessary because Tam squarely controls the outcome of this case,” the Washington Redskins legal team said June 22 in a response to the 4th Circuit’s request.
Many trademark lawyers agree that the 4th Circuit most likely will grant the team’s request, regardless of what happens now. However, Eric Ball, partner at Fenwick & West, LLP sees an oral argument as an opportunity for Blackhorse to appeal to the public.
“Ms. Blackhorse’s legal arguments are a long shot at this stage. But oral argument is another chance to sway public opinion,” Ball said. “If the 4th Circuit live streamed the oral argument here, then Ms. Blackhorse could further explain the harm that the Redskins mark causes her.”
As for Blackhorse, “People understand that name—the R word—is offensive, and they’re done having this conversation,” she said. “We definitely won in that sense.”
To contact the reporter on this story: Ayanna Alexander in Washington at email@example.com
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Mike Wilczek at firstname.lastname@example.org
Copyright © 2017 The Bureau of National Affairs, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
All Bloomberg BNA treatises are available on standing order, which ensures you will always receive the most current edition of the book or supplement of the title you have ordered from Bloomberg BNA’s book division. As soon as a new supplement or edition is published (usually annually) for a title you’ve previously purchased and requested to be placed on standing order, we’ll ship it to you to review for 30 days without any obligation. During this period, you can either (a) honor the invoice and receive a 5% discount (in addition to any other discounts you may qualify for) off the then-current price of the update, plus shipping and handling or (b) return the book(s), in which case, your invoice will be cancelled upon receipt of the book(s). Call us for a prepaid UPS label for your return. It’s as simple and easy as that. Most importantly, standing orders mean you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you’re relying on. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.960.1220 or by sending an email to email@example.com.
Put me on standing order at a 5% discount off list price of all future updates, in addition to any other discounts I may quality for. (Returnable within 30 days.)
Notify me when updates are available (No standing order will be created).
This Bloomberg BNA report is available on standing order, which ensures you will all receive the latest edition. This report is updated annually and we will send you the latest edition once it has been published. By signing up for standing order you will never have to worry about the timeliness of the information you need. And, you may discontinue standing orders at any time by contacting us at 1.800.372.1033, option 5, or by sending us an email to firstname.lastname@example.org.
Put me on standing order
Notify me when new releases are available (no standing order will be created)