Redskins trademark ordered canceled by federal judge

Erik Brady | USA TODAY Sports

Show Caption Hide Caption Judge orders Redskins trademark to be cancelled A federal judge has ordered the Patent and Trademark Office to cancel registration of the Washington Redskins' trademark, ruling that the team name may be disparaging to Native Americans. The judge said the organization could keep its name.

The Washington NFL team lost in court Wednesday when a federal judge ordered the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to schedule cancellation of six federal trademark registrations owned by the club, ruling that the team's name — "Redskins" — was disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans when the marks were originally granted.

U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee emphasized that the team remains free to use the name as it chooses and that the ruling means only that the team loses the specific legal protections of its federal registrations, which remain in effect until all potential appeals in the case are heard.

Lee's ruling affirms the findings of the patent office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which last year ruled in favor of Amanda Blackhorse and four other Native Americans who sought cancellation of the registrations. The team had sued in district court to overturn that ruling.

"This is total victory for us," attorney Jesse Witten told USA TODAY Sports. "My clients are extremely happy. They have waited a very long time for this."

A statement from Washington team president Bruce Allen said the team was surprised by the decision and indicated the team will appeal to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Richmond.

"We look forward to winning on appeal after a fair and impartial review of the case," Allen said. "We are convinced that we will win because the facts and the law are on the side of our franchise that has proudly used the name Redskins for more than 80 years."

The case is officially known as Pro-Football, Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse, et al. "All Native Americans can stand proud," Blackhorse told The Arizona Republic. "This means the cancellations stand."

Lee rejected the team's contention that trademark cancellation infringes on its free-speech rights. "The federal trademark program is government speech and is therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny," Lee wrote in the conclusion of his 70-page ruling.

The team argued in a hearing before Lee last month in Alexandria, Va., that it could not be proved that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term "redskins" disparaging during the years that the federal registrations were granted. But Lee ruled that "the evidence before the Court supports the legal conclusion that between 1967 and 1990, the Redskins Marks consisted of matter that 'may disparage' a substantial composite of Native Americans."

Legal terms such as "substantial composite" and "may disparage" come from Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act, which bars federal trademark registration for marks that may disparage or bring into disrepute particular groups or individuals. The original trademark case against the team using the Lanham Act came in 1992, when Suzan Harjo led a group of Native American petitioners who challenged the federal registrations.

The patent office's appeals board ruled in favor of Harjo and her fellow petitioners in 1999, but the team appealed in federal court and won in 2003 when the court ruled they had waited too long after turning 18 years old to file their complaint. The Blackhorse case, which began in 2006, used younger petitioners. Lee ruled against the team's argument that the Blackhorse petitioners waited too long in this case as well. First, he said, because they "did not unreasonably delay" their petition given their ages and, second, "because of the public interest at stake."

Even if the team were to lose all appeals, it could continue to enforce its trademarks in state courts and under common law. But team attorney Robert Raskopf argued during last month's hearing before Lee that losing the circled R that comes with federal trademark registrations would be a significant blow to the team, which has invested money and goodwill in its marks for decades.

The decision also figures to be a loss for the team in terms of public relations. The fight against the team name, which goes back decades, was re-energized last year when the patent office's appeals board issued its ruling.

Contributing: Megan Finnerty of The Arizona Republic