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.

New Jersey businesses must manage legal and reputational risk together because modern disputes play out on two fronts at once: the legal proceeding itself and the court of public opinion, where customers, employees, investors, and business partners often reach conclusions long before a judge or jury has had the opportunity to evaluate the facts. Success […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

No. An eviction does not automatically end a tenant’s obligation to pay rent. Post-eviction rent claims are common because recovering possession resolves who has the right to occupy the premises, but it does not extinguish the tenant’s contractual obligations under the lease. Whether unpaid or future rent remains owed depends on three factors: the lease’s […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

A company is dissolved; legally, it ceases to exist. Accordingly, dissolution results in significant legal and financial consequences. It is a process that must be properly managed to avoid continuing liability. The Corporate Dissolution Process Corporate dissolution is the legal process of formally closing a corporation, paying its debts and distributing the remaining assets. Most […]
Author: Jay McDaniel

A triple net lease is a commercial lease in which the tenant pays the property’s real estate taxes, insurance, and maintenance costs, known as the three nets, in addition to base rent. They are most often used in freestanding retail and office buildings and in large single-tenant industrial properties, with terms that typically run 10 […]
Author: Donald M. Pepe

Every lawsuit comes with a cost, and knowing when to settle a lawsuit is one of the most consequential decisions a business owner will face. Experienced litigators understand how to minimize cost and obtain certainty for their clients. For many business owners, the decision is viewed almost entirely through a financial lens: What will it cost […]
Author: Sean M. Pena

Business law services are legal services that help companies form, operate, transact, protect assets, manage risk, and resolve disputes. The phrase can sound broad because it is broad. A company may need help with entity formation one month, contract review the next, a commercial lease after that, and a business dispute later in the year. […]
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
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!