Washington Redskins Win Trademark Dispute in D.C. Circuit

The Washington Redskins football team will get to keep its name and trademark, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit ruled today in upholding a trial court decision in a case that dates back nearly two decades.

Seven Native Americans who allege the Redskins football trademark is disparaging lost their trademark case against the NFL team today in the appeals court, which found there was too great a delay between when the Redskins mark was registered and when it was first challenged. Click here for a copy of the opinion.

The appeals court, in an opinion written by Judge David Tatel, did not explore the merits of the claim. Instead, the court ruled the Redskins defense of laches—that the team suffered trial and economic prejudice because of the delay in challenging the mark—is justified.

The plaintiffs, including Mateo Romero, did not challenge the mark until 1992—well after it was registered in 1967. On remand after the D.C. Circuit first weighed in on the case, the trial judge set the clock running in 1984, when Romero turned 18.

Between 1984 and 1992, which is called the “Romero Delay Period” in court records, former Redskins president Edward Bennett Williams died—a fact the trial court found hurt the Redskins’ effort to put together a defense. Williams had reportedly met with Native American leaders to garner their views on the team’s mark. The Redskins also expanded the investment of its marks during the delay period.

“Eight years is a long time—a delay made only more unreasonable by Romero’s acknowledged exposure to the various Redskins trademarks well before reaching the age of majority,” Tatel wrote for the panel, which included Chief Judge David Sentelle and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart Oliver & Hedges partner Robert Raskopf, who has represented the Redskins in the dispute since 1992, says the D.C. Circuit ruling “totally vindicates” the Redskins. “It’s a great win,” says Raskopf, a trial and appellate lawyer who specializes in intellectual property disputes in the sports, media and entertainment bars.

Counsel for the plaintiffs, Philip Mause, a partner at Drinker Biddle & Reath in D.C., says his clients look forward to resolution on the merits of the claim against the Redskins. “I was hoping we would get to the point where we could get to a decision on the merits,” Mause says. “But we are still in the laches swamp. At some point this will have to be resolved on the merits. I think that’s inescapable.”

Mause says there is a pending claim against the Redskins at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, where a group of younger Native Americans filed a recent challenge against the football team’s trademark.

Comments

[Lisa Fantino, Esq.]

At some point in this ridiculously politically correct society of ours why does freedom of speech and expression always take a back seat to the hurt feelings of a chosen few seeking their 15 minutes in the spotlight?

Perhaps as a New Yorker I should be insulted if someone from the south calls me a Yankee. However, as an intelligent woman I am not; in fact, I am proud to be a Yankee, now if only Derek Jeter would call!

[A.W.]

I think legally, bluntly, there should be enough free expression here that you can call the team whatever the hell you want. I mean, they are saying that this is too offensive. Have you ever seen the name of the production company behind the show "Jackass"? i am not even sure i can repeat it here. Its a clear reference to the male anatomy. And "redskins" is supposed to be so offensive they can't trademark that?

As far as whether it is morally offensive, i would say 1) at best it is borderline. i mean, isn't it pretty clear that they are invoking the term so everyone thinks of fearsome warriors? I know more than a few native american dudes who take it as a compliment.

and 2) oh, seriously, lighten up. Life is too short to get hung up on this.

I mean i suppose next we will hear from the pirate-american community upset about the Buchaneers. (don't laugh. Al Sharpton has already tried to claim the Somali pirates are just "misunderstood.") And then the rodeo union gets mad about the cowboys, texans get mad about the texans and so on.

And bluntly, congress needs to step in here. there needs to be a strict statute of limitations on challenging a trademark for offensiveness.

[Steven]

In this day and age when high schools, colleges and universities are being forced to drop their mascots that refer in any way to Native Americans, why doesn't the Washington NFL team stand up and do what's right. It has one of the most derogatory names out there, much more offensive than the "warriors" or the "braves." The Washington NFL team could set a postive example for all americans. People would quickly get over the loss of a long-standing name. Look at the NBA, they move and change names all the time. The "Oilers" are gone, the "Expos" are gone, along with a few versions of the "Senators." I don't think in the long run that people would miss the "Redskins."

To put things in perspective, what if the team had been named the "Blackskins" or the "Negroes" or the "Coloreds." What then? People would not stand for that, would they? Why is it ok to treat one race of people in an insulting way when it would not be acceptable to make use of such terms offensive to another race.

Stand up Washington, this has gone on long enough.

[Dick]

Hail to the Redskins!!

[pmcv]

I see the Redskins' point, but in the end shouldn't they just defer to the wishes of the Native Americans? Just because they are "right" doesn't mean they are right. I would cheer just as loud and buy just as much crap if they renamed themselves to something else - bullets to wizards didn't stop me, or even really slow me down; and come on - we have to change the Nats to something else asap before we get stuck with that.