Washington Football Team

Here is the opening brief in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

56 Pro-Football Motion for Summary J on Constitutional Claims

According to the briefing schedules, briefs are going to be flying fast and furious. We’ll try to keep up.

Prior materials on the federal government intervention here, and the now-denied motion to dismiss here.

Seattle Human Rights Commission Release on Law Firms that will Boycott Washington Football Team

February 2, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher

Law Firms Rally to Boycott Corporate Sponsors of the D.C. N.F.L. Team; the National Congress of American Indians Issues a Letter of Support

For information contact:

Ethel Branch

(206) 344-8100

ethel.billie@gmail.com

SEATTLE –The Seattle-based law firm of Kanji & Katzen PLLC has answered the call of the Seattle Human Rights Commission and has voted to boycott the D.C. N.F.L. team’s key corporate sponsors until the team’s name changes. This includes ceasing use of FedEx in the firm’s two offices, and closing the firm’s accounts at Bank of America. The firm specializes in litigation on behalf of Native Nations throughout Indian country in fields spanning treaty rights, sovereignty protection, taxation and regulation, land claims and land use, reservation boundaries, gaming and economic development, and environmental protection.

The move by Kanji & Katzen, announced last Monday, prompted other law firms to join the boycott. By Friday, Kewenvoyouma Law, Skenandore Law, Galanda Broadman (also Seattle-based) and the Alaska office of Sonosky, Chambers, Sachse, Endreson & Perry, LLP had joined the boycott. The boycott is also under review by the partners of a number of other law firms nationwide.

Meanwhile, on Thursday, the National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest representative organization of Native Nations in the United States, issued a letter of support for the Seattle Human Rights Commission’s Resolution No. 15-01 calling for the boycott among City of Seattle residents and businesses, as well as by the City of Seattle itself.

The Commission continues to urge the City, City businesses, and City residents to join the boycott and recently started a change.org petition for individuals to sign on to the boycott. The “Boycott D.C. N.F.L. Team Sponsors until the Name is Changed” petition has garnered 69 signatures thus far.

US Intervenes in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc. (Washington Football Team Trademark)

January 12, 2015Matthew L.M. Fletcher2 Comments

Here are the new materials in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

41 Answer

46 US Notice of Intervention

Prior materials here.

Alex Pearl on “How to Be an Authentic Indian” — A Comment on the Washington Football Team Name Controversy

December 10, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Alex Pearl has published “How to Be an Authentic Indian” in the California Law Review Circuit.

Here is the abstract:

The mascot and team name of the Washington, D.C. professional football team is making headlines. What do Authentic Indians really think about it? This essay clears the air by replacing the liberal media talking points with an actual viewpoint from Indian Country. This perspective gives an inside view into the significant efforts to maintain longstanding traits of “Indian-ness” against an onslaught of political correctness gone mad.

This, as you will see, is satire.

Amanda Blackhorse’s Hate Mail: “Hostile, Aggressive, Racist, and Sexist”

December 4, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

From ICT here.

HT Pechanga.

Federal Court Denies Motion to Dismiss Washington Football Team’s Suit against the Blackhorse Plaintiffs

December 1, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher3 Comments

Here are the materials in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

1 Complaint + Exhibits

19 Motion to Dismiss

25 Opposition

27 Rebuttal Brief

40 DCT Order Denying Motion to Dismiss

Blackhorse Plaintiffs Move to Dismiss Washington Football Team’s Suit

November 21, 2014Matthew L.M. Fletcher1 Comment

Here is the motion to dismiss in Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse (E.D. Va.):

19 Motion to Dismiss

An excerpt:

In June 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (“TTAB”), a component of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”), decided that the USPTO acted contrary to federal trademark law when it issued six trademark registrations to Plaintiff Pro-Football, Inc. (“PFI”), the owner of the Washington NFL team. The TTAB concluded that the marks were not eligible for registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1502(a) because they contain matter that “may disparage” Native Americans.1 Accordingly, the TTAB scheduled the registrations for cancellation by the Director of the USPTO. The TTAB acted after five Native American individuals, the defendants in this action (“Blackhorse Defendants”), petitioned it to cancel the registrations.

PFI could have appealed to the Federal Circuit, where the USPTO could have defended the TTAB decision, but PFI declined to do so. See 15 U.S.C. § 1071(a). Instead, PFI filed this civil action against the Blackhorse Defendants, under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4).

PFI’s dispute, however, is with the USPTO, not with the Blackhorse Defendants. PFI alleges that the TTAB — not the Blackhorse Defendants — acted unlawfully by scheduling its registrations for cancellation. Likewise, PFI seeks relief only against the USPTO — a declaratory judgment to prevent the Director of the USPTO from carrying out the cancellations. PFI alleges no conduct on the part of the Blackhorse Defendants other than filing a petition with the TTAB. It does not allege that they acted unlawfully or tortiously. Nor does PFI allege that the Blackhorse Defendants claim any interest in PFI’s trademarks or in similar trademarks. This lawsuit will not affect the legal rights or obligations of the Blackhorse Defendants in any way. As a result, the Complaint should be dismissed for the following two reasons:

• The Blackhorse Defendants are not “parties in interest” who may be sued under 15 U.S.C. § 1071(b)(4); and

• This Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction because there is no “Case or Controversy” under Article III of the Constitution as between PFI and the Blackhorse Defendants.

The complaint is here.