Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comAuthor: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC|July 23, 2015
The team will likely appeal the decision, but questions arise: Can they win? When and why are federal judges allowed to cancel offensive trademarks?
The Redskins franchise has, for some time, been embroiled in a two-pronged battle to defend its name, both legally and in the public eye. The term “redskin” has been deemed offensive to Native Americans by many, even though the Washington football team has explained that the name is meant to honor Native Americans, rather than disparage them. Regardless of the Redskins’ insistence that the team’s name represents a positive portrayal of Native Americans, backlash against it has persisted and the organization hasn’t fared much better in courtrooms.
On July, 8, 2015, a federal judge ruled to cancel the team’s trademark registration, because the Redskins name was deemed offensive to Native Americans. The legal reasoning for the cancelation all goes back to the Lanham Act, which is the main federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The section of the Lanham Act pertaining to trademark registration cancelations and rejections, §1052, was used in the attempt to cancel the Redskins trademark.
This section of the act notes that any trademark that “comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter” or “may disparage” certain individuals may be refused registration. This isn’t the only reason a trademark may be rejected, but it was good enough to lead a judge to cancel the Redskins’ trademark. The Washington football team is one of a number of sports organizations whose names reference Native Americans, and it remains to be seen whether “redskin” is the only one of those words deemed disparaging by the court.
It also isn’t the only reason a trademark registration may be refused. Sports teams’ and other organizations’ trademark registrations may be refused for a number of reasons. For example, if they contain the flag, coat of arms or any other insignia of the U.S., if they include the “name, portrait or signature” of any living person without his or her consent and if they consist of, or contain a mark that has already been registered.
The Firm
201-896-4100 info@sh-law.comThe team will likely appeal the decision, but questions arise: Can they win? When and why are federal judges allowed to cancel offensive trademarks?
The Redskins franchise has, for some time, been embroiled in a two-pronged battle to defend its name, both legally and in the public eye. The term “redskin” has been deemed offensive to Native Americans by many, even though the Washington football team has explained that the name is meant to honor Native Americans, rather than disparage them. Regardless of the Redskins’ insistence that the team’s name represents a positive portrayal of Native Americans, backlash against it has persisted and the organization hasn’t fared much better in courtrooms.
On July, 8, 2015, a federal judge ruled to cancel the team’s trademark registration, because the Redskins name was deemed offensive to Native Americans. The legal reasoning for the cancelation all goes back to the Lanham Act, which is the main federal trademark statute of law in the United States. The section of the Lanham Act pertaining to trademark registration cancelations and rejections, §1052, was used in the attempt to cancel the Redskins trademark.
This section of the act notes that any trademark that “comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter” or “may disparage” certain individuals may be refused registration. This isn’t the only reason a trademark may be rejected, but it was good enough to lead a judge to cancel the Redskins’ trademark. The Washington football team is one of a number of sports organizations whose names reference Native Americans, and it remains to be seen whether “redskin” is the only one of those words deemed disparaging by the court.
It also isn’t the only reason a trademark registration may be refused. Sports teams’ and other organizations’ trademark registrations may be refused for a number of reasons. For example, if they contain the flag, coat of arms or any other insignia of the U.S., if they include the “name, portrait or signature” of any living person without his or her consent and if they consist of, or contain a mark that has already been registered.
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from theScarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!