Friday, January 9, 2015
VIRGINIA – Earlier today, the government filed a notice of intervention in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse, et al. telling the court that federal prosecutors will defend trademark issues involving alleged derogatory language, officials said.
The case involved the Washington Redskins trademark registration.
The United States will defend the constitutionality of the federal statute.
“The Department of Justice is dedicated to defending the constitutionality of the important statute ensuring that trademark issues involving disparaging and derogatory language are dealt with fairly,” said Acting U.S. Attorney for the Eastern District of Virginia Dana J. Boente,
Federal prosecutors said they will defend the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s U.S. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, officials said.
Here are the facts and circumstances surrounding this case, according to federal officials.
- In August 2006, five Native Americans, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs, Philip Gover, Jillian Pappan and Courtney Tsotigh, sought the cancellation of six Washington Redskins trademark registrations under the Lanham Act on the grounds that the trademarks were disparaging to Native Americans at the time they were registered.
- A panel of the Appeal Board agreed and issued a June 18, 2014 decision that the registrations should be canceled.
- Pro-Football Inc., the owner of the Washington Redskins, filed a complaint in U.S. District Court on Aug. 14, 2014, against the five individuals who had petitioned the Appeal Board for invalidation of the Redskins trademarks.
- Pro-Football Inc. is challenging the constitutionality of federal law on the grounds that the act violates the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
- The Lanham Act permits denial or cancellation of a trademark application if the trademark is disparaging or falsely suggests a connection with persons living or dead, institutions, beliefs or national symbols.
- The act further provides that if a private party believes that a trademark was improperly registered, the party may start review proceeding before the Appeal Board seeking to have the trademark canceled.
Assistant Attorney General Joyce R. Branda for the Civil Division said: “I believe strongly in the rights of all Americans to celebrate and maintain their unique cultural heritage. Going forward, we will strive to maintain the ability of the United States Patent and Trademark Office to make its own judgment on these matters, based on clear authorities established by law.”
In October, the Christian Science Monitor reported that Navajo Nation president Ben Shelly was an honored guest of Washington Redskins owner Daniel Snyder, sitting next to him during an NFL game between the Redskins and Arizona Cardinals.
And this viral photo of Native American leader is being hailed as a rebuttal to those who say the team’s name is racist.
The newspaper stated that Public statements and opinion polls show mixed feelings on the name, and the photo – complete with Mr. Shelly in a Redskins cap – is raising more questions about a team name change.
In April, a Navajo Nation Council committee had voted 9-2 in support of a bill called “Opposing the Use of Disparaging References to Native People in Professional Sports Franchises.”
Federal prosecutors said the United States is specifically authorized by federal statute to intervene in any federal action in which the constitutionality of an act of Congress is drawn into question.
Intervention by the United States will not interfere with the timely adjudication of this action, they said.
Bloomberg News Story dated June 2014 on Washington Redskins Trademark: