Pro Football Inc. v. Harjo

Yahoo: Redskins Need a New Nickname

Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

An incredibly rare sportswriter, Michael Silver, who objects to the Redskins (thanks to Bob). From Yahoo:

Last Friday, in a judicial decision that hinged on a legal technicality, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington, D.C., upheld the right of the local pro football team to keep its unconscionable nickname.

Gloated team attorney Bob Raskopf, “It’s a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner, Dan Snyder.”

Alas, it was another shameful day for America.

Photo Redskins helmet.

(Stephen J. Boitano/AP Photo)

In clinging to the most racially offensive moniker held by a major U.S. professional sports team since the Emancipation Proclamation – yes, I know, since forever – the franchise continues to offend some Native Americans and assault the sensibilities of a citizenry that should be long past such insensitive and shallow depictions.

How can a large majority of us not be offended? Imagine trying to explain “Redskins” to a foreign visitor or a time-traveler from the future? Every time I say the word, I throw up in my mouth a little and wonder why there is no widespread outrage.

I’ve heard all the arguments about why this name should be allowed to exist, and they move me about as much as Jim Zorn’s red-zone offense in a tight game against a strong opponent. (Sorry – I realize that was a cheap shot. Besides, I wouldn’t want to get ‘Skins fans ticked off at me or anything.)

You can spare me the protestations about how the name is actually a tribute to Native Americans, or how other allegedly similar groups (Vikings? Really?) are also consigned to mascot status. You can skip the talk about the importance of the team name to its fans or the tradition that would be compromised were it to be changed.

I’m not hearing it, because if I close my eyes and think about where we are as a society and the fact that this name still exists, it’s a complete travesty on both visceral and logical levels.

Would we “honor,” say, Chicago’s African-American population by calling its NFL team the Brownskins?

Continue reading →

D.C. Circuit Sides with Redskins on Trademark

Matthew L.M. Fletcher

From How Appealing:

“Appeals Court Lets Redskins Keep Name, Trademark”: The Washington Post has this news update.

And The Associated Press reports that “Appeals court sides with Redskins on trademark.”

My earlier coverage of today’s D.C. Circuit ruling appears at this link.

An excerpt from the opinion:

At bottom, this case concerns whether various trademarks related to the Washington Redskins football team disparage Native Americans within the meaning of the Lanham Trademark Act, § 2, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). But that question has since been overshadowed by the defense of laches, the basis on which the district court first entered judgment for the Redskins six years ago. We reversed that decision, finding that the district court had misapplied the law of laches to the particular facts of the case. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo (Harjo II), 415 F.3d 44, 50 (D.C. Cir. 2005). On remand, the district court reconsidered the evidence in light of our instructions and again ruled for the team. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo (Harjo III), 567 F. Supp. 2d 46, 62 (D.D.C. 2008). Now appealing that decision, plaintiffs argue only that the district court improperly assessed evidence of prejudice in applying laches to the facts at issue. Limited to that question, we see no error and affirm.