Here.
WaPo Article on Ongoing Legal Dispute over Washington Redskins Name and Logo
Here.
Washington Redskins
Repost: The NYRB on “The Racist Redskins”
We posted this last month, but here it is again (now fully available). It is a review of Thomas G. Smith’s “Showdown: JFK and the Integration of the Washington Redskins.”
Now with an excerpt:
Star Collection, D.C. Public Library/Washington Post
Washington Redskins owner George Marshall posing with twins in a publicity photo, 1954
In 1992, four years after Jesse Jackson joined Stanford students in chanting “Hey hey, ho ho, Western Civ has got to go,” the Native American writer and activist Suzan Harjo, who had moved to Washington, D.C., in the 1970s, became the lead plaintiff in a case against the Washington Redskins football organization. She was joined by six other Native Americans, including the writer Vine Deloria Jr. This intended blow on behalf of Native American dignity—an attempt to force the team to change its name—took the form of a trademark registration case. Under the Lanham Act of 1946, any “mark” that is disparaging or that may bring a group of citizens into disrepute is not afforded the normal trademark protections.
At the time, sports teams at all levels were facing pressure to change such names. The Atlanta Braves kept theirs—arguably neutral or even positive—but in 1986 they had retired Chief Noc-A-Homa, a mascot who actually had a teepee in the bleachers of Fulton County Stadium and performed a war dance when a home team player hit a home run. The St. John’s Redmen became the Red Storm in 1994. Miami University of Ohio dropped the name Redskins in 1997. But those were colleges, and small ones. The Washington Redskins were then and are now one of the richest franchises in all of professional sports, selling many millions of dollars’ worth of their burgundy-and-gold merchandise with the warrior’s head in profile. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary labels “redskin” as “usually offensive,” placing it in the company of “darky,” “kike,” and “dago.” But the Redskins fought the suit for years, and finally, in 2009, the Supreme Court refused to hear the plaintiff’s appeal, letting stand a lower court decision in favor of the football team chiefly on the grounds that the plaintiffs had waited too long to file their claim.
NYRB: “The Racist Redskins”
Here. Subscription req’d.
Irony of the Year (So Far): Redskins’ Owner Sues Newspaper over Anti-Semitic Statements
Here is the complaint filed by Daniel Snyder alleging that the Washington City Paper “employ[ed] lies, half-truths, innuendo and anti-Semitic imagery to smear, malign, defame, and slander a prominent member of the community in order to generate reader interest and maintain its circulation.”
Without making a judgment on Snyder’s claim (which may be perfectly legitimate), it is nevertheless ironic that the owner of a professional sports franchise that employs a racial epithet to identify itself.
Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. Challenge to Redskins Marks
The case is still in abeyance but now that Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. is dead, here are the basic materials so far:
Update on New and Newer Redskins Trademark Cases
From The BLT:
The latest effort to strip trademark protection from the name of the Washington Redskins is now before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Native Americans, represented by Philip Mause, of counsel at Drinker Biddle & Reath, filed protests Feb. 24 against six pending trademark applications for the Redskins name, some dating as far back as 1992. The trademark applications were filed by Pro Football, inc., the owner of the Redskins, and other entities including the Washington Redskins Cheerleaders in hopes of protecting the trademark for use on clothing and other souvenirs and paraphernalia.
According to Mause, the applications had been “held in abeyance” while the long-running litigation against the Redskins filed by Suzan Harjo and others was underway. As we reported here in November, the Supreme Court denied review of a lower court decision that had rejected the Harjo challenge to existing Redskins trademarks.
The new protest through the trademark office’s administrative process makes many of the same arguments that the Redskins name is disparaging and therefore not eligible for trademark protection. “The use of ‘redskins’ and other so-called Indian names and images in sports are offensive and demeaning to Native American peoples,” the protest letter states. In an interview, Mause said the letters were filed at an early stage in the examination process that was reopened after the Harjo litigation ended. As a result, Mause said the issues of laches — whether the challengers waited too long — should not come into play. Continue reading
Sonia Katyal on the Redskins Case
From Findlaw:
 |
The Fight Over the Redskins Trademark and Other Racialized Symbols |
| By SONIA K. KATYAL |
|
| Monday, December 7, 2009 |
A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court declined to hear a case involving the trademark for the Washington Redskins. That decision left in place a lower court ruling stating that the plaintiffs had waited too long to bring a case for trademark cancellation – thus triggering the doctrine of laches, under which suits brought too late are barred. Around the same time, a federal judge in North Dakota prohibited the State Board of Education from immediately retiring the Fighting Sioux moniker of the University of North Dakota.
But neither controversy is truly over, and the underlying issue of racialized representations is likely to be discussed and litigated for years to come. With respect to the Washington Redskins, a different set of plaintiffs – and an entirely new case, filed in August 2006 – is waiting in the wings to challenge the trademark on the grounds of its disparaging content. In the UND case, the judge imposed a temporary restraining order on the ground that the state board could not unilaterally alter the deadline without ensuring the tribes’ participation. A new hearing has been set.
ATL Interview with Amanda Blackhorse, Lead Plaintiff in New Trademark Case against Redskins
Here, via Leiter and the Lounge:
An excerpt:
We interviewed the lead petitioner, Amanda Blackhorse, last week. Blackhorse, now 27, grew up on the Navajo Reservation, went to Nations University in Kansas, and is now a social worker in Phoenix working with mentally ill adults. Here’s a synopsis of our Q and A:
ATL: What was your reaction to the Harjo decision?
Blackhorse: I was saddened by it. But our case is now going to move forward. For legal questions, please talk to our attorney, Philip Mause [partner at Drinker Biddle].ATL: When did you start thinking about team mascots this way?
Blackhorse: During my sophomore year at Nations University, [a university for all Native American tribes], I started to become aware of my history as a Native American. I grew up on a Navajo reservation but never learned my history. The only thing shared between tribes is oppression. I literally cried when I realized our social problems stemmed from this.ATL: How did you get involved with the case against the Redskins?
Blackhorse: In 2005, my friends and I decided to protest at a Redskins – Kansas Chiefs game in Kansas City. I was shocked to see the way people thought we were. They didn’t consider us human beings. People threw beers at us, told us to go home, yelled racial slurs. After that, I knew I needed to do something.
Supreme Court Denies Cert in Harjo and Elliott
The order list is here, with the Harjo and Elliott cases listed on page 3.
Neither decision is a big surprise, as the Court grants cert in only a small percentage of cert petitions. The trademark suit against the Redskins will continue through different plaintiffs, but the laches argument that served to defeat the Harjo plaintiffs applies with virtually equal force to the new plaintiffs. (AP article here).
The Elliott case is a welcome relief, given that the Court seems to grant cert petitions filed by non-Indians against tribal jurisdiction almost randomly. Here, one suspects the fact that the Ninth Circuit merely was remanding to tribal court for a decision on the merits may have some importance, but the Court has previously granted cert in cases prior to a tribal court decision on the merits (see Strate). The takeaway from the Elliott cert petition denial is simply that one must continue to assume the Court continues to look at tribal jurisdiction cases carefully, but makes its certiorari decisions based on some utterly random calculus.
We surely would love to know if Justice Sotomayor weighed in on these cases in any way, and if so, how.
Law Professor Amicus Brief Supporting Harjo Cert Petition
Here — Law Professor Amicus Brief
The cert petition is here, and the rest of the amicus briefs and materials are here.
Turtle Talk 
You must be logged in to post a comment.