Redskins ruling is consistent with TTAB precedent
By Patricia Cotton
In Blackhorse v Pro-Football Inc, the US Patent and Trademark Office once again cancelled various registrations for trademarks used by the Washington Redskins football team as being disparaging to Native Americans. While this highly publicised decision may have taken some by surprise, the holding is in line with several other recent PTO decisions involving the Lanham Act’s prohibition on the registration of disparaging marks, decisions which received far less media attention and public comment.
On 18 June 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board issued a decision in the second proceeding brought by a group of Native Americans to cancel registrations for various ‘Redskins’ marks used by the National Football League and the Washington Redskins. The board held that the marks were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans as of the registration date of each mark, in violation of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which prohibits registration of a mark that ‘may disparage’ persons or ‘bring them into contempt or disrepute’. As a result, the board ordered the cancellation of six Redskins trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football Inc, the parent company of the Washington Redskins, issued between 1967 and 1990.
This is not the first time that the board has considered whether a mark is disparaging to a particular group, nor is this the first time the board has considered whether these particular marks are disparaging to Native Americans…
Click on the link below to read the rest of the Pillsbury briefing.
News from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
News from The Lawyer
Briefings from Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman
Aurora Energy decision deems discharges prohibited, leaves open question of permit shield applicability
On 3 September 2014, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued its opinion in Alaska Community Action on Toxics v Aurora Energy Services LLC.
Scaling back considerably from the October 2012 term, the US Supreme Court issued only a few rulings affecting environmental law during the October 2013 term.