Thread: 'The Slants' Trademark Win in Court May Boost Redskins Case

'The Slants' Trademark Win in Court May Boost Redskins Case

Todd Shields TShields3
December 22, 2015 — 9:31 AM PST Updated on December 22, 2015 — 12:29 PM PST

• U.S. court says the government can't reject disparaging marks
• Ruling could help the Washington Redskins keep trademark

An appeals court ruling in favor of an Asian-American rock band may help the Washington Redskins in a fight over the team’s name.

The band’s name, The Slants, “conveys more about our society than many volumes of undisputedly protected speech,” the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said in a free-speech ruling on Tuesday. The court said the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office shouldn’t have rejected the group’s trademark application.

“The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks,” Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore wrote for the majority.

The ruling may help Washington’s National Football League team, which cited free-speech principles in its ongoing appeal of a separate court ruling stripping the club of some trademark protections. The cases each concern the same section of law, said Ronald Coleman, a partner at Archer & Greiner P.C. who represented The Slants before the appeals court.

“The Redskins are pretty happy campers,” Coleman said after the ruling.

The decision has little practical effect on the band and can help clear the way for trademarks for small- and medium-sized businesses that don’t have the resources to fight the government, Coleman said.

Legislation Ban

For years, the band has been trying to trademark its moniker, which is also a derogatory term sometimes used for Asian people. On April 20, an appeals court in Washington upheld the Patent and Trademark Office’s rejection of the band’s request.

The main question was whether the First Amendment right to free speech trumps a legislative ban on disparaging trademarks.

The Redskins in July lost some protection for the team’s controversial name after a federal judge ruled it may be disparaging to Native Americans. The decision didn’t bar the team’s commercial use of the trademarked name, but opened the door to copycats seeking to profit from it. The ruling left intact a decision in 2014 by the Patent and Trademark Office to cancel six trademarks.

In the Slants case, Circuit Judge Timothy Dyk said in a dissenting opinion that the court was correct about the band’s name but went too far in deeming unconstitutional the section of law at issue.

Patrick Ross, a spokesman for the Patent and Trademark Office, didn’t immediately return a telephone call. Tony Wyllie, a Redskins spokesman, didn’t immediately supply a comment.

The cases are In re Simon Shiao Tam, 14-1203, U.S. Court of Appeals for the
Federal Circuit; and Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse, 15-1874, U.S. Court of
Appeals for the Fourth Circuit (Richmond).

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/ar...ls-court-rules

Supreme Court sides with band the Slants and strikes down law banning offensive trademarks

David G. Savage Contact Reporter


The Supreme Court extended trademark protection to words and names that may be offensive, ruling Monday that the 1st Amendment right to free speech allows an Asian American band to call itself the Slants.

The unanimous decision will also likely preserve the trademarked and controversial name of the Redskins, Washington’s pro-football team.

In recent years, such trademarked names have come under attack as racially offensive. But in Monday’s decision, the high court struck down part of a 1946 federal law that barred trademarks that may “disparage” people or groups.

The justices said this provision violates “a bedrock 1st Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend,” said Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. He said trademarks are “private speech,” not the government speaking. And as such, the law may not punish words or expressions simply because they are offensive.

“We have said time and time again that the ‘public expression of ideas may not be prohibited merely because the ideas are themselves offensive to some of their hearers,’” Alito said in the case of Matal vs Tam.

http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-n...619-story.html