"Redskins" trademark registrations likely to be re-instated

[ICanSleepWhenI'mDead]

The full en banc panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decided that the First Amendment bars the US Patent & Trademark Office from refusing to register trademarks that if finds disparaging.

 

This isn't the exact case involving cancellation of the "Redskins" trademark, which is pending before a different federal appellate court, but it may be predictive of the outcome of the "Redskins" case, because it involves a nearly identical issue. This decision by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is not binding on other federal courts of appeal, but they are likely to find its reasoning persuasive.

On the other hand, if the court of appeals in the Redskins case DOES decide the nearly identical issue differently, it would greatly increase the odds that the U.S. Supreme Court would exercise its discretion to hear any future additional appeal.

Earlier thread on this topic is now in archives:

http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/178959-update-on-legal-dispute-over-redskins-trademark/page-10

Might make sense to re-open it and merge it with this thread.

The full Federal Circuit opinion (including several dissents) is at the link below, and involves an application by a band to federally register a trademark for "The Slants:"

 

http://admin.aipla.org/resources2/reports/AIPLA%20Direct%202015/Documents/InReTamEnBanc.PDF

 

 

 

CONCLUSION

Although we find the disparagement provision of § 2(a) unconstitutional, nothing we say should be viewed as an endorsement of the mark at issue. We recognize that invalidating this provision may lead to the wider registration of marks that offend vulnerable communities. Even Mr. Tam, who seeks to reappropriate the term “slants,” may offend members of his community with his use of the mark. See Br. of Amici Curiae Nat’l Asian Pacific Am. Bar Ass’n 3, 5. But much the same can be (and has been) said of many decisions upholding First Amendment protection of speech that is hurtful or worse. Whatever our personal feelings about the mark at issue here, or other disparaging marks, the First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration be- cause they find the speech likely to offend others. Even when speech “inflict great pain,” our Constitution protects it “to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.” Snyder, 562 U.S. at 461. The First Amendment protects Mr. Tam’s speech, and the speech of other trademark applicants.

 

We hold that the disparagement provision of § 2(a) is unconstitutional because it violates the First Amendment. We vacate the Board’s holding that Mr. Tam’s mark is unregistrable, and remand this case to the Board for further proceedings.

Edited December 24, 2015 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead

[KD in CA]

You mean the government can't just create any bullsh-- loophole it can dream up to restrict the first amendment for purely PC reasons??

 

Cue the outrage!!

Edited December 24, 2015 by KD in CT

[EasternOHBillsFan]

This is a great ruling that I can only hope affects a binding court ruling. Maybe it will lead to more rollbacks of infringement upon others' First Amendment rights due to this PC nonsense our country has been throttled by. There is hope yet!!!!

[Wazzu Bill]

+1 yay supreme court

[dwight in philly]

This is a great ruling that I can only hope affects a binding court ruling. Maybe it will lead to more rollbacks of infringement upon others' First Amendment rights due to this PC nonsense our country has been throttled by. There is hope yet!!!!

[zonabb]

You mean the government can't just create any bullsh-- loophole it can dream up to restrict the first amendment for purely PC reasons??

 

Cue the outrage!!

You mean like the Patriot Act, that undercut constitution rights under the guise of protection from terrorists? I guess everyone is OK with giving up their rights out of fear but be damned if we're going to give up our right's to be racists.

 

The term "redskin" was used by the white majority as an intentionally pejorative term to describe Native Americans. It therefore was and is deemed by most Native Americans as offensive. The idea that this is so-called PC is merely another attempt to minimize and therefore continue the use of the term by ignorant white Americans who are slowly seeing their power slip away as the county becomes less white and more ethnically diverse.

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

[metzelaars_lives]

I can't do it again.

[boyst]

This is everything that is right with the way that the judicial system works.

You mean like the Patriot Act, that undercut constitution rights under the guise of protection from terrorists? I guess everyone is OK with giving up their rights out of fear but be damned if we're going to give up our right's to be racists.

 

The term "redskin" was used by the white majority as an intentionally pejorative term to describe Native Americans. It therefore was and is deemed by most Native Americans as offensive. The idea that this is so-called PC is merely another attempt to minimize and therefore continue the use of the term by ignorant white Americans who are slowly seeing their power slip away as the county becomes less white and more ethnically diverse.

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

just curious, do you have Facebook?

Edited December 24, 2015 by Boyst62

[dwight in philly]

You mean like the Patriot Act, that undercut constitution rights under the guise of protection from terrorists? I guess everyone is OK with giving up their rights out of fear but be damned if we're going to give up our right's to be racists.

 

The term "redskin" was used by the white majority as an intentionally pejorative term to describe Native Americans. It therefore was and is deemed by most Native Americans as offensive. The idea that this is so-called PC is merely another attempt to minimize and therefore continue the use of the term by ignorant white Americans who are slowly seeing their power slip away as the county becomes less white and more ethnically diverse.

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

[FireChan]

You mean like the Patriot Act, that undercut constitution rights under the guise of protection from terrorists? I guess everyone is OK with giving up their rights out of fear but be damned if we're going to give up our right's to be racists.

 

The term "redskin" was used by the white majority as an intentionally pejorative term to describe Native Americans. It therefore was and is deemed by most Native Americans as offensive. The idea that this is so-called PC is merely another attempt to minimize and therefore continue the use of the term by ignorant white Americans who are slowly seeing their power slip away as the county becomes less white and more ethnically diverse.

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

Who is everyone?

 

The rest is the usual nonsense. Merry Christmas.

[metzelaars_lives]

This is the exact opposite of a post you would emoji bow to. Are you sure you read it?

[dwight in philly]

This is the exact opposite of a post you would emoji bow to. Are you sure you read it?

what is emoji?

[Mr. WEO]

 

 

 

 

If there is one thing we need in this country is a national conversation about the applicability of a document written by racist slave owners in the late 18th century when the most common modes of transportation were your feet or a horse and only the most highly trained soldiers could squeeze off four rounds a minute using a weapon with an effective range of 100 yards.

 

That document has been altered (amended) 27 times over the past 200+ years since it was written. Hundreds more amendments are proposed by Congress every couple of years.

 

It's sad that the American educational system could fail so dramatically that one could post such a statement as yours. That's what the "national conversation" should be about.

[metzelaars_lives]

what is emoji?

Emojis are the cartoon figures most commonly used by teenage girls to express emotions in text messages. You used one earlier that seemingly paid reverence to a post, which totally clashes with your typical ideologies- including those you have already made clear in this very thread (using another emoji). Hence, my confusion.

Edited December 25, 2015 by metzelaars_lives

[dwight in philly]

Emojis are the cartoon figures most commonly used by teenage girls to express emotions in text messages. You used one earlier that seemingly paid reverence to a post, which totally clashes with your typical ideologies- including those you have already made clear in this very thread (using another emoji). Hence, my confusion.

im very emoji challenged

Edited December 25, 2015 by dwight in philly

[DC Tom]

You mean like the Patriot Act,

No, entirely unlike that. The Patriot Act is a bad piece of legislation created by proper legislative process. The Redskins decision was an arbitrary bureaucratic rule issued as an ex post facto, extra-judicial punishment for violating popular opinion.

 

The passage of bad laws by proper process is completely different from the creation of good rules by improper process. And guess which is more damaging in the long run? (Hint: you can repeal a law more easily that you can fight an irresponsible bureaucracy.)

[vorpma]

Meanwhile, back to football and the Bills!

[Dopey]

Meanwhile, back to football and the Bills!

Rex is a clown.

[vorpma]

Rex is a clown.

[peterpan]

I am curious, do the people who find the name Redskins offensive also find the word Negro offensive? ( just in case this is censored, I'm referring to the Spanish word or black that begins with the letter NE and ends Gro).

 

I ask because a lot of silly people do think that is an insult, but it's not. That is the proper scientific term for their race. My black friend born in 1987 has it on his birth certificate naming his race. Yet lots of people who scoff at you if you used te term in public. Yet it's quite simply not a racist nor derogatory term.

 

The same can be said of Redskin.