Here:
Opening briefs were here.
cultural resources
NYTs: Hopis Try to Stop Paris Auction of Artifacts
Here.
An excerpt:
The Néret-Minet auction house in Paris says that its sale, on April 12, will be one of the largest auctions of Hopi artifacts ever, and it estimates that it will bring in $1 million. Many of the objects are more than 100 years old and carry estimates of $10,000 to $35,000. The auction house says that among the spirits represented are the Crow Mother, the Little Fire God and the Mud Head Clown.
“Sacred items like this should not have a commercial value,” said Leigh J. Kuwanwisiwma, director of the Hopi Cultural Preservation Office in Kykotsmovi, Ariz. “The bottom line is we believe they were taken illegally.”
Christine Haight Farley on the Washington Redskins Trademark Question
Here. Thanks to Ezra for this.
An excerpt:
How would you feel about a wine called “Khoran?” Apparently, the word “Khoran” is Armenian for altar, which is why a company sought to trademark “Khoran” for wine in the United States. But should such a trademark be registered by the US government when, being phonetically equivalent to the sacred text of Islam, it may offend Muslims when used to denote an alcoholic beverage? In this case, the trademark was refused registration by the US trademark office.
Should a trademark application for jeans called “Jesus Jeans” be treated any differently? In the US and European Union, this registration was allowed, however, China, Switzerland, Australia, Norway, Cuba, Turkey, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan and Kyrgyzstan have all refused the trademark, and Britain’s trademark office rejected its as “morally offensive to the public”.
What should we do about offensive trademarks? Granted, this is not the biggest problem that plagues us today and there are very few offensive trademarks that are still in use. Perhaps the most obvious thing to do is to vote with our dollars. That is, generally the market will correct the problem since merchants usually do not want to offend their customers.
And yet there still are some trademarks out there that offend. And some of them offend deeply. One of those trademarks is “Redskins”, which is the trademark for the professional American football team in Washington, DC.
Federal Court Dismisses Winnemem Tribe’s NAGPRA Claims
Here are the materials:
DCT Order Denying Motion But DismissingNAGPRA Claims
USFS Motion to Strike NAGPRA Claims
The court previously dismissed the tribe’s cultural property claims.
NPR on Brazil’s Surui Tribe
Here. An excerpt:
Chief Almir Surui, 38, has built alliances with American technology companies, environmental groups and lawmakers in the capital, Brasilia, and in cities far beyond Brazil. And the Surui reserve, called Seventh of September for the date in 1969 when the outside world made its first sustained contact with the tribe, has become a hotbed of technology designed to protect the jungle.
The Indians use smartphones to monitor illegal logging and Google Earth Outreach to show the world what their reserve is like.
“Our model calls for saving the forest and fighting for sustainable development,” says Chief Almir, as he stands in the middle of the forest surrounded by chirping birds and many species of trees. “It’s a challenge because it’s very important to do all this. But other countries do not always pursue responsible policies.”
Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Navajo Trademark Claims against Urban Outfitters & Anthropologie
Here are the materials in Navajo Nation v. Urban Outfitters (D. N.M.):
NN v. UOs Order Denying Motion to Dismiss
Previous materials on a denied motion to transfer venue are here.
Washington Redskins Trademark Bill and Press Release
WaPo: Lawmakers Offer Bill to Ban Redskins Trademark
Here.
Havasupai Tribe, Conservation Groups Challenge Uranium Mine Threatening Grand Canyon
The complaint can be seen here. The Center for Biological Diversity’s News Release can be seen here.
A snippet of the complaint:
After initial approval of the Canyon Mine, the Forest Service formally designated Red Butte and surrounding areas as a Traditional Cultural Property. This designation means Red Butte is eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the definition of a “historic property” under the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Forest Service also recognized that Red Butte is a sacred site to the Havasupai Tribe. The Forest Service’s 1986 approvals did not analyze the Canyon Mine’s potential effects to Red Butte as a historic property under the NHPA. The Forest Service recently commenced consultation with the Havasupai Tribe concerning the Canyon Mine’s impacts to Red Butte, and claims that it intends to continue consultation. The Forest Service is refusing to undertake and complete a NHPA Section 106 Process relating to adverse impacts to the Red Butte TCP, including consulting with the Tribe for the purposes of developing a Memorandum of Agreement, prior to allowing Canyon Mine to restart mining operations, as required under NHPA and its regulations, 16 U.S.C. § 470f, 36 C.F.R § 800.13(b)(1).
Trademark Trial and Appeals Board Hears Redskins Trademark Challenge
Here are the materials so far in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.:
Plaintiffs’ Brief on Laches Issue
Defendants’ Brief on Laches Issue
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief on Laches Issue
Plaintiffs’ Reply Brief on Merits
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.