Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comFirm Insights
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Date: December 20, 2016
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.com
Recently, the Supreme Court rejected an appeal from the NFL’s Washington Redskins to reverse a ruling that canceled the team’s trademarks. According to Yahoo Sports, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled the Redskins’ registered trademark images were to be canceled because they violated Section 2(a) of the Lanham Trademark Act of 1946 which states that the trademark may “disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.”
Specifically, the law is intended to ban registered trademarks deemed offensive – in this case, the Redskins logo disparages Native Americans. The appeal was particularly interesting because the NFL team requested the Supreme Court hear the case prior to a federal appeals court’s decision.
Meanwhile, the Supreme Court recently announced it will hear a similar case involving The Slants, an Asian American band that was denied trademark due to the offensive nature of its name. Sports Illustrated reported this decision by the Court prompted the Redskins to appeal to the high court to hear both cases together. If the Court were to rule in favor of The Slants, and conclude that there was a violation of the band’s First Amendment rights by the law, it would also be a win for the Redskins’ case.
The recent background of the case comes from the fact that in 2015, a federal judge upheld the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s 2014 decision against the Redskins. Yahoo Sports noted this led the Redskins to form alliances with various free speech activist groups, one of which included The Slants.
As an Asian American band led by Simon Tam, the group wants to trademark the use of “slants”, which is a slang term for Asians. So far, Tam has been successful in his appeals as he won a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that ruled banning attempts to trademark “slants” was in direct violation of First Amendment rights. At which point, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office requested the Supreme Court hear the case.
In short, if the Supreme Court upholds the federal appeals court’s decision for The Slants, it will cancel out the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s previous decision on the Redskins.
The team is particularly adamant about this case due to the potential financial ramifications. Bloomberg BNA found that if the Redskins lost rights to their brand, it could cost the team upwards of $200 million. Currently, the Redskins rank as the fifth most profitable brand in the NFL among 32 teams at $2.95 billion. However, only $214 million of that value stems from the brand, which could mean that the team would effectively take a substantial hit to its brand revenue without the Redskins name.
Do you have any questions? Would you like to discuss the matter further? If so, please contact me, Anthony Caruso, at 201-806-3364.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.

Few situations create more uncertainty than learning that an employee has filed a whistleblower complaint. Questions arise immediately: Is the allegation legitimate? Should the employee be placed on leave? Do we need to notify our insurance carrier? Are we now prevented from disciplining the employee if there are unrelated ongoing work related issues? There is […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

When a business reaches the point where it can no longer service its debts or otherwise resolve its liabilities, management is often faced with a difficult question: is a bankruptcy filing necessary or is there another way to perform an orderly liquidation or sale of the business assets? While Chapters 7 and 11 of the […]
Author: John D. Giampolo

For many years, the New Jersey Mansion Tax has been a significant consideration in high-value real estate transactions. Recent legislative changes, however, have substantially altered how the tax operates, including who is responsible for paying it and the amount owed in certain transactions. Whether you are purchasing, selling, or investing in New Jersey real estate, […]
Author: George McGowan

As our personal and financial lives increasingly move online, estate planning must evolve to address a new category of property: digital assets. From email accounts and social media profiles to cryptocurrency and cloud-stored business records, these assets often carry both financial and sentimental value. Yet, without proper planning, they can become inaccessible—or even lost—upon incapacity […]
Author: Marc J. Comer

In today’s mergers and acquisitions market, representation and warranty (R&W) insurance has become a common feature of deal negotiations. Once used primarily in larger transactions, R&W insurance is now frequently incorporated into middle-market deals as buyers and sellers look for efficient ways to allocate risk and close deals. When structured properly, R&W insurance can help […]
Author: George McGowan

Receiving a federal grand jury subpoena is not something most businesses or individuals anticipate. While it can be concerning, a federal grand jury subpoena does not necessarily mean that you are being accused of wrongdoing. It does, however, mean that a federal criminal investigation is underway and that federal prosecutors believe you may possess information […]
Author: Sean M. Pena
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!