The NFL will lose several benefits of federal registration of the trademark. Redskins stripped of trademarks

In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the team name because it was found to be “disparaging” to Native Americans.

“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the Patent Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote in a 2-1 decision.


The Redskins’ team name has become a divisive political issue over the past few years, with even President Barack Obama saying the club should consider changing it. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Senate Democrats also have pressed owner Dan Snyder to change the name. On the other side, conservatives have either defended keeping the name, arguing that it isn’t a slur, or been silent on the uproar.

( Also on POLITICO: Twitter floats new Redskins name ideas)

The trademark attorney for the Redskins, Bob Raskopf, downplayed the ruling and vowed the team will win an ensuing appeal.

“We’ve seen this story before. 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,” he said in a statement, citing rulings in 1999 and 2003. “We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal.”

Reid lauded the trademark decision on the Senate floor Wednesday, saying it reinforces the push for the Redskins to change the name.

Reid called the name a “sad reminder” of the bigotry Native Americans have faced and said the issue “is extremely important to Native Americans all across the country.”

( Also on POLITICO: Twitter floats new Redskins name ideas)

“Daniel Snyder may be the last person in the world to realize this, but it’s just a matter of time until he is forced to do the right thing and change the name,” he said.

“The writing is on the wall,” Reid added. “It’s on the wall in giant, blinking, neon lights.”

The majority leader also praised the work of Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), the former Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairwoman who has been a major leader on the issue. She spoke on the Senate floor to hail the “landmark decision.”

“This is not the end of this case, but this is a landmark decision by the Patent Office that says that the NFL team here in Washington, D.C., does not have a patentable name, and that this is an offensive term not patentable by the Patent Office,” she said.

( Also on POLITICO: Reid to Snyder: Writing is on the wall)

Senate Indian Affairs Committee Chairman Jon Tester (D-Mont.) also hailed the ruling, saying on Twitter: “This decision is a step forward for Indian Country & for all Americans who champion tolerance.”

Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.), a vocal critic of the team name, slammed Snyder for trying to have the decision overturned.

“I don’t know how many times he needs to be told that the name is disparaging. I understand he says he’s going to appeal. Shame on him,” she said in an interview. “I mean, does he like losing?”

Norton had co-sponsored a bill last year to amend the 1946 Lanham Act, the law that prohibits the registration of trademarks that disparage any group. Her legislation would include “redskins” as a disparaging term if it is contained in a trademark with connotations to the Native American community.

( Also on POLITICO: Obama: Sports culture needs change)

A National Football League spokesperson said the league would not be issuing a separate statement from the team.

Five Native Americans in 2006 brought the petition Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc., aimed at stripping the team’s half-dozen trademark registrations for the term “Redskins.”

“I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed,” said plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse. “The team’s name is racist and derogatory.”

Follow @politico

Critics of the name who had turned to the trademark office note that the ruling does not stop the organization from continuing to use the term. But it could potentially devalue it because anyone would be able to use the unprotected name, meaning that companies not affiliated with the team could, for instance, print and sell T-shirts, posters and whatever other products they wanted without having to share any revenues with the Redskins’ owner.

Under the trademark office’s decision, the NFL also will lose several benefits of federal registration of the trademark, including the use of the federal registration symbol.

“The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board agreed with our clients that the team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans,” said Jesse Witten, lead attorney for the Native Americans. “The Board ruled that the Trademark Office should never have registered these trademarks in the first place.”

In his dissent, Judge Marc Bergsman said the Native Americans hadn’t proved their case.

“By this dissent, I am not suggesting that the term ‘redskins’ was not disparaging in 1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990 (the registration dates at issue). Rather, my conclusion is that the evidence petitioners put forth fails to show that it was,” Bergsman’s dissent read.

The Redskins can appeal the decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C., or file a civil action in District Court. The trademark office faced a similar case brought against the team in the 1990s, when, despite ruling in favor of that Native American group several years later, the board’s decision was eventually thrown out in court on an appeal.

The Oneida Indian Nation and the National Congress of American Indians, two groups that have led the campaign to change the team’s name, released a statement applauding the ruling.

“The U.S. Patent Office has now restated the obvious truth that Native Americans, civil rights leaders, athletes, religious groups, state legislative bodies, members of Congress and the president have all echoed: taxpayer resources cannot be used to help private companies profit off the promotion of dictionary defined racial slurs,” Oneida leader Ray Halbritter and NCAI Executive Director Jackie Pata said in a joint statement.

In May, 50 senators — 48 Democrats and two independents — wrote NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell urging him to change the name. “The N.F.L. can no longer ignore this and perpetuate the use of this name as anything but what it is: a racial slur,” the letter read. The letter, spearheaded by Cantwell, was not circulated among Republicans.

The NFL shot down the letter later that day, saying the team wants to portray a “strong, positive and respectful image” with the name.

Obama also weighed in on the name last October, saying he would consider changing it. “If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team — even if it had a storied history — that was offending a sizable group of people, I’d think about changing it,” he said.

Josh Gerstein contributed to this report.