Trademark office deems 'Redskins' disparaging
WASHINGTON — The Patent and Trademark Office ruled on Wednesday that the Washington Redskins' name is “disparaging of Native Americans” and should be stripped of trademark protection — a decision that puts powerful new financial and political pressure on the NFL team to rename itself.
By a vote of 2-1, the agency's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with five Native Americans in a dispute that has been working its way through legal channels for more than two decades.
The ruling doesn't directly force the team to abandon the name, but it adds momentum to the campaign at a time of increasing criticism of Redskins owner Dan Snyder from political, religious and sports figures who say it's time for a change.
“If the most basic sense of morality, decency and civility has not yet convinced the Washington team and the NFL to stop using this hateful slur, then hopefully today's patent ruling will, if only because it imperils the ability of the team's billionaire owner to keep profiting off the denigration and dehumanization of Native Americans,” said Oneida Indian representative Ray Halbritter and National Congress of American Indians Executive Director Jackie Pata, two of the leading forces in the campaign to change the name.
The Redskins quickly announced they will appeal, and the team's name will continue to have trademark protection while the matter makes its way through the courts — a process that could take years.
A similar ruling by the board in 1999 was overturned on a technicality in 2003.
“We've seen this story before,” Redskins attorney Bob Raskopf said. “And just like last time, today's ruling will have no effect at all on the team's ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo. We are confident we will prevail once again.”
Snyder and others associated with the team have long argued that the Redskins name is used with respect and honor and is a source of pride among many American Indians.
The ruling involves six uses of the Redskins name trademarked by the team from 1967 to 1990. It does not apply to the team's American Indian head logo.
If it stands, the team will still be free to use the name but will lose a lot of its ability to protect its financial interests. It will be more difficult for the team to go after others who print the Redskins name on sweatshirts, jerseys or other gear without permission.
“Joe in Peoria is going to have a pretty good argument that he could put the ‘Redskins' name on some T-shirt,” said Brad Newberg, a copyright law expert in Virginia.
Newberg estimated that the ruling, if upheld, could cost the team tens of millions of dollars per year. Forbes magazine puts the value of the Redskins franchise at $1.7 billion and says $145 million of that is attributable to the team's brand.
The board exercised its authority under a section of the Trademark Act of 1946 that disallows trademarks that may disparage others or bring them into contempt or disrepute. Over the years, the courts have rejected arguments that the First Amendment guarantees the right to register any name as a trademark.
In reaching its decision, the board drew on the testimony of three experts in linguistics and lexicography and combed through old dictionaries, books, newspapers, magazines and even vintage movie quotes to examine the history of “redskin,” looking specifically at whether it was considered disparaging at the time the trademarks were issued.
The board concluded that today's dictionaries “uniformly label the term ‘offensive' or ‘disparaging' ” — a change that took place between the late 1960s and the 1990s — and that its derogatory nature is further demonstrated by “the near complete drop-off in usage of ‘redskins'” as a term for Native Americans beginning in the 1960s.
Washington Mayor Vincent Gray suggested on Wednesday that the name will almost certainly have to change if the team ever wants to build a new stadium in the city.
Snyder, who has vowed repeatedly never to abandon the name, declined to comment as he walked off the field after a practice.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Reports: Actor Ford seriously injured in small-plane crash in L.A.
- Feds weighed national standards but let North Dakota set regulations for oil trains’ safety
- Latest winter blast strands airline passengers, motorists
- Weapon supply vulnerable to hackers, Pentagon official warns
- Modified endoscope linked to deadly ‘superbug’ outbreak lacked FDA approval
- McConnell punts on Iran review bill
- 1st suicide try likely last, says new study
- Senate Dems push for vote on attorney general pick
- Blankenship: US prosecution ‘selective and vindictive’
- Marathon blast survivor testifies to brush with bomber
- Gag order overturned in Upper Big Branch case