News

Redskins to fight trademark ban

Redskins to fight trademark ban

WHAT'S IN A NAME?:On Wednesday, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal canceled six Redskins trademarks because they disparage Native Americans. Photo: Associated Press

By Ian Simpson

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Washington Redskins expect a legal case involving cancellation of the NFL team’s trademarks to move more quickly than a previous case that took nearly 11 years to conclude in the franchise’s favor, a lawyer for the team said on Thursday.

On Wednesday, a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office tribunal canceled six Redskins trademarks because they disparage Native Americans. The team has said it will appeal the ruling in federal court, and the trademark protection remains until appeals are concluded.

The team’s trademark lawyer, Bob Raskopf, told Reuters the case would likely be resolved more quickly than the previous one involving a 1999 Patent Office tribunal ruling since the appeal would be heard in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia rather than in a Washington court.

“It’s known for the speedier resolutions. It’s called the ‘rocket docket.’ … They move cases quickly,” Raskopf said.

The previous case took almost 11 years to conclude until the Supreme Court declined to hear it in 2009, with the Redskins retaining their trademark protection.

Citing tradition, team owner Daniel Snyder for 14 years has defied calls to change the club’s name, which dates from the 1930s. The Redskins have come under increasing pressure from Native American groups, politicians and others over the name.

Raskopf said he had talked with Snyder about an appeal and he is “as optimistic as I am.”

The team wanted to win the case, Blackhorse v Pro Football Inc., on the merits so the issue of the name can finally be resolved, he said.

The earlier case was decided on a technical issue, with a District of Columbia court ruling that the petitioners had waited too long to assert their rights as adults after the first Redskins’ trademark was issued in 1967.

Raskopf said he was confident since the arguments in the current case were the same as that in the 1999 case. The three-member tribunal board also had split, adding to his optimism, he said.

Amanda Blackhorse, the named plaintiff in the case, said increasing public opposition to the Redskins’ name would help during the appeals process.

Redskins “is a term that has been created for us by the colonizers. They use that word to oppress us,” Blackhorse, a Navajo psychiatric social worker, told Reuters.

(Reporting by Ian Simpson; Editing by Eric Beech and Will Dunham)

Recent Headlines

in National

Time for Iran to make tough decisions in nuclear talks

Fresh
In this March 26, 2015, photo, Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif, center, leaves a meeting with U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and other U.S. officials at a hotel in Lausanne, Switzerland. U.S. and Iranian diplomats gather at a Baroque palace in Europe, a historic nuclear agreement within reach. Over Iraq’s deserts, their militaries fight a common foe. Leaders in Washington and Tehran, capitals once a million miles from each other in ideological terms, wrestle for the first time in decades with the notion of a rapprochement.

Six world powers and Iran move closer to a deal, but there are still major disagreements.

in Sports

This week’s top sports shots

Fresh
AP564917773040_12

A look at some of the biggest plays and best photos in sports this week.

in Sports

This weekend’s sports schedule

Fresh
playball

A look at some of this weekend's biggest sporting events.

in National

Making headlines this week

Fresh
AP193442892434_0

A look at some of the week's biggest headlines and the stories you may have missed.

in Entertainment, National

Celebrities protest new Indiana law

George Takei poses for a portrait at Quaker Good Energy Lodge with GenArt and the Collective , during the Sundance Film Festival, on Saturday, Jan. 18, 2014 in Park City, Utah.

Celebrities call for an Indiana boycott after the passing of a controversial law that could lead to discrimination against gay couples.