If you read it then I assume you realize the relevant legal question is whether at the time the trademark was registered whether it was disparaging. That means that the challengers to the trademark must submit evidence that the trademark would be considered disparaging as they were registered. The trademark was registered in 1967. Where is the evidence that in 1967 the term was offensive? If so why did anyone wait until 1992 to file the first case? Where was the evidence that showed what public opinion was back in 1967?
Yes actually. I thought it was pretty well laid out how they came to the conclusion that it was offensive in 1967. Which part did you disagree with?
Whether the mark is politically incorrect or disparaging today is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The evidence the TTAB did use was a National Congress of American Indians’ (“NCAI”) 1993 Resolution 93- 11. What someone said or thought in 1993 is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether in 1967 a trademark was offensive.
Actually, they also noted that the definition for the word started being noted as offensive, starting around the ’60s, and also that usage to refer to Native Americans dropped off around the same time. They also made a point of saying that the name Redskins is still clearly associated with Native Americans.
Just because 50 senators and a president have inserted themselves into the discussion does not mean that “rule of law” should be ignored.
What evidence do you have to show that this was a political decision, other than the fact that you disagree with it?
