The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Law360, New York (December 22, 2015, 11:51 AM ET) -- The Federal Circuit ruled Tuesday that the federal government’s ban on “disparaging” trademark registrations is a violation of the First Amendment, striking down the provision that was used to revoke the Washington Redskins' trademark registrations.

The ruling, which came in a separate case filed by members of a band called The Slants who were refused a registration on their name on the grounds that it was offensive to Asian-Americans, declared the Lanham Act’s Section 2a to be an unconstitutional discrimination based on unpopular speech.

“Many of the marks rejected as disparaging convey hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities,” the appeals court wrote. “But the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech.”

“The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks,” the court wrote.

Section 2a is the same provision cited by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in June 2014 when it revoked the Washington football team's trademark registrations. That ruling was upheld by a federal judge this summer, and is currently on appeal to the Fourth Circuit.

The band is represented by Ronald D. Coleman of Archer & Greiner PC.

The USPTO is represented in-house by Nathan K. Kelley, Christina Hieber, Thomas W. Krause, Molly R. Silfen and Thomas L. Casagrande as well as by Mark R. Freeman, Joshua Marc Salzman, and Daniel Tenny of the U.S. Department of Justice.

The case is In re: Simon Shiao Tam, case number 14-1203, at the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit.

riggofan wrote:The best news is that we're playing a game with playoff implications this Saturday, so nobody has time to waste on this.

riggofan wrote:Its kind of a mixed ruling. Good that they've protected their trademark. But not especially great that the court is saying they're protecting free speech, even hurtful and disparaging remarks. lol.

The best news is that we're playing a game with playoff implications this Saturday, so nobody has time to waste on this.

With the Washington Redskins set to play a game in London in 2016, the national controversy involving the team's name is now turning into an international controversy.

Five days before the Super Bowl, the NFL received a letter from two members of British Parliament in regards to the Redskins name.

In the Feb. 2 letter, which was obtained by ESPN, parliament members Ruth Smeeth and Ian Austin asked the league to have Washington change its name or "at the minimum, send a different team to our country to represent the sport, one that does not promote a racial slur."

The Redskins are scheduled to play the Bengals on Oct. 30 at Wembley Stadium.

The day after the NFL announced that the Redskins would be playing in England, the Oneida Indian Nation blasted the NFL for creating an international incident by sending the Redskins to London.

NFL commissioner Roger Goodell has held the same stance on the Redskins name for the past few years. Goodell has reiterated that any name change is ultimately up to owner Daniel Snyder.

League spokesman Brian McCarthy echoed that sentiment in a statement to ESPN.

"A team's name is a club decision," McCarthy said. "We recognize there are strong views on both sides of this."

In the letter from the parliament members, Smeeth and Austin said that the Redskins name goes "directly" against the values of British citizens.

"We were shocked to learn the derivation of the term 'R*dskin,' pertaining as it does to the historic abuse of native Americans," the letter said. "The exportation of this racial slur to the UK this autumn, when the Washington team is due to play, directly contravenes the values that many in Britain have worked so hard to instill."

Smeeth also explained that the game could be an issue for the BBC, the publicly funded company that's scheduled to broadcast the game.

"Given it's taxpayer-funded, if we believe it's a racial slur, then that means problems for the BBC in terms of coverage of the event," Smeeth told ESPN. "There is going to come a pressure point. The last thing the NFL wants -- after putting so much behind its brand in the UK -- is a good number of us to begin putting pressure on the BBC in terms of what they're showing and how they're showing it. This is not the image the NFL wants portrayed in the UK."

The game could also create a problem for Wembley Stadium, which "has strict regulations against the use of racial slurs and chanting at its events and is owned by the football association, which has taken a strong stance against racism in sports," the letter states.

You can read the letter in its entirety by clicking here.

The Week 8 game is a Bengals home game, so if the NFL decided to change it, and that's a big if, then it would likely involve another team on Cincinnati's home schedule playing in London. The NFL could also move the game to Cincinnati.

The Redskins' name controversy has slowly been gaining steam over the past few years.

In October, the state of California banned all public schools in the state from using the name "Redskins" as an athletic team name, mascot or nickname. That ruling came 18 months after the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office canceled Washington's trademark registration on the "Redskins" name.

The Redskins are appealing that ruling.

SkinsJock wrote:wouldn't bother me at all if we didn't have to go ...

ferryrich wrote:

SkinsJock wrote:wouldn't bother me at all if we didn't have to go ...

It would bother me, I've already got my tickets!

SkinsJock wrote:speaking of "old issues" ... the "name" issue is not going away ...

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/new-p ... skins-name

SkinsJock wrote:seems like the 'name game' might be over ....

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/supre ... ame-fight/