American Renaissance
Previous Story       Next Story       View Comments       Send This Page       Date Archives       Category Archives

Appeals Court Sides With Team in Suit Challenging Trademark

More news stories on Race and Sports

Del Quentin Wilber, Washington Post, May 16, 2009

A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team’s name.

The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge’s ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.

{snip}

Attorneys for the National Football League franchise say the name is a sign of honor but are also fighting to protect millions of dollars’ worth of sales of Redskins merchandise. If the team had lost in court, it could have continued to use the name on Redskins paraphernalia but would have faced a tougher time preventing merchants from infringing on its trademarks.

The dispute started in 1992, when seven Native American activists challenged the trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with the activists, ruling that the team had no right to trademark the name. Pro-Football Inc., the team’s corporate owner, appealed to federal court.

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with the team, ruling that the activists had not produced enough evidence to show the name was so insulting that it could not be protected by a trademark. The judge also found that the activists had waited too long to file their challenge. An appeals court in 2005 asked the judge to revisit the delay issue because one activist, Mateo Romero, might have legal standing. He was born in 1966.

{snip}

The judge found that the delay unfairly penalized the Redskins, who invested millions of dollars marketing the team during that eight-year span.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday upheld Kollar-Kotelly’s decision.

{snip}

Original article

(Posted on May 18, 2009)

     Previous story       Next Story       Post a Comment     Send This Page      Search

Comments

1 — Whiteplight wrote at 5:54 PM on May 18:

Yes, perhaps “The Washington Pinkos” would be more appropo. (Couldn’t resist it).

2 — Question Diversity wrote at 7:02 PM on May 18:

I bet most of these “Native American activists” are white liberals. Most American Indians, I think, aren’t unhappy with these caricatures, because it represents the admiration by white society of the fight they put up to keep whites from expanding across the continent.

3 — Alexandra wrote at 7:51 PM on May 18:

Personally, I find the Cleveland Indians mascot Chief Wahoo a bit more offensive than naming a team the Redskins. Mostly because Chief Wahoo is grinning like an idiot.

Still, I have better things to be concerned about than something like this, and I say this as someone of Cherokee ancestry.

4 — Istvan wrote at 8:02 PM on May 18:

Most Americans do not view the term as insulting and a large percentage may not even realise it has anything to do with American Indians.

5 — flyingtiger wrote at 12:38 AM on May 19:

Washington lobbyists would be agreat name.

6 — Anonymous wrote at 11:41 AM on May 19:

Whites on a guilt trip feeling sorry for non-whites again. Did anyone ever ask these minorities if they were offended…or did these liberals just think they were and legislate on that assumption?

7 — Madison Grant wrote at 12:55 AM on May 20:

This frivolous lawsuit started in 1992! It’s been tying up our legal system for 17 years.

The activists should be forced to pay the Redskins’ legal fees. Better yet, these hack judges should have thrown out the case back in ‘92.

8 — Strider wrote at 9:56 PM on May 20:

The nice thing about the name “Redskins” is that it’s location-neutral — not associated with a particular place. (In fact, the franchise was originally in Boston.) So when the US breaks up and DC becomes a ghost town (eventually flooding out, as seen on “Life After People”), the team can move without changing the name. Ditto the NBA Wizards. That is not the case, however, with the Capitals (hockey), Nationals (baseball) and DC United (soccer) — for them, new digs will require new names.


Home      Top      Previous story       Next Story      Send This Page      Search