Controversy regarding the name and logo
See also: Washington Redskins name controversy, Native American mascot controversy, and Redskin
Some consider the name and logo of the Washington Redskins to be racist.[67] Polls have shown a variety of results. For example, a 2013 USA Today poll found widespread support for the Redskins name. The poll indicated that 79 percent of Americans polled believed that the Redskins should keep their name.[7] Likewise, an October 2013 study by market research firm Survata found that just 19 percent of respondents supported a name change for the Redskins, while 30% did not, and 51% had no opinion.[8] In contrast, in 2001, Indian Country Today conducted a poll of an undisclosed number of readers reporting that "81 percent of respondents indicated use of American Indian names, symbols and mascots are predominantly offensive and deeply disparaging to Native Americans."[68] A 2014 AP poll showed that 83% felt the team should keep its name[69]
There have been movements by certain groups to change the name,[70] but the attempts have been unsuccessful thus far. Others make the case in defense that the Redskins name is intended to honor the bravery and dignity of American Indians,[71] and that, regardless of past usage, the word redskins today refers to the football team. Notwithstanding the protests of activists, a 2002 poll commissioned by Sports Illustrated found that 75% of those American Indians surveyed had no objection to the Redskins name.[72] The results of the poll have been criticized by American Indian activists due to Sports Illustrated's refusal to provide polling information (i.e. how participants were recruited and contacted, if they were concentrated in one region, if one ethnic group is over-represented, and the exact wording and order of questions).[73][74] But in 2004, a poll by the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania supported the prior poll's findings, concluding that 91% of the American Indians surveyed in the 48 states on the mainland USA found the name acceptable and setting out in detail the exact wording of the questions.[75] In 2013, a letter was written by 10 members of Congress, to team owner Dan Snyder, asking him to consider changing the name of the mascot.[76] Snyder insists that "We will never change the name of the team."[77] Despite this, several NFL insiders have spoken their opinions that the name should be changed, including Richard Sherman,[78] Jason Taylor,[79] and Mike Holmgren.[80]
In 1992, a group of American Indians led by Suzan Harjo filed Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc. to have the United States trademarks associated with the Redskins name canceled under statutes which prevent registration of disparaging terms. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in 1999 ruled in favor of the petition and canceled the trademarks. Following appeals, in 2005, the D.C. Court of Appeals in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo reversed the cancellation, ruling that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of disparagement and holding that the majority of the petitioners were barred by laches from maintaining the suit.[81] Had the cancellation of the trademark been successful, the team could have still used the name, and it still would have had enforceable trademark rights under state and local laws. It would thus have been able to prevent others from using its marks on promotional goods, such as jackets and caps. It would, however, have lost various benefits of federal trademark registration, such as the ability to enlist the aid of the U.S. Customs Service to seize infringing imports at the border. On May 15, 2009, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit affirmed an earlier ruling that the American Indians had waited too long to challenge the trademark. The trademark was registered in 1967. American Indians successfully convinced the court to reconsider, based on one of the plaintiffs, Mateo Romero, being only one year old in 1967 and turning 18 in 1984. The court decision affirmed that, even accepting the 1984 date, the American Indians had still waited too long for the 1992 challenge.[82] In November 2009, in Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., Case No. 08-327, the U.S. Supreme Court declined certiorari and refused to hear the Indian group's appeal. A second case, Blackhorse et al v. Football, Inc., making the same arguments but with younger petitioners not barred by laches, has been scheduled to be heard by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.[83][84] Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc. is unique in two ways the fact that the case is pending, not in a federal court, but in the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, the administrative tribunal of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. Losing an opposition or cancellation proceeding does not mean that a trademark owner has to stop using its mark; it denies registration of the marks – which can be a significant penalty, for marks, like at issue in the Blackhorse case, that are used primarily for licensing purpose. The second noteworthy aspect of the case, which is that the federal Trademark Act is the only intellectual property statute that includes what amounts to a censorship clause. It provides for denial of registration to material that:…consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute…15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).[85]
In 2014 Eradicating Offensive Native Mascotry (EONM) began engaging in an ongoing campaign to change the name, forming out of the Twitter campaign that was timed to coincide with Super Bowl XLVIII.[86] During the Twitter storm, activists tweeted using the tag #NotYourMascot in order to raise awareness for the issue, and the tag trended.[87]
On June 18, 2014 the United States Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the Washington Redskins trademark for a second time, saying that the name is “disparaging to Native Americans.”[88] Bob Raskopf, the Redskins trademark attorney, released a statement saying they plan to appeal the ruling. Raskopf claims the Trademark and Patent office lacked substantial evidence to back their claim that the Redskins name was disparaging to Native Americans, as well as the tribes petitioning for the name change. He also claimed that while the appeal process is going on, the trademark will remain valid.[89]
Originally Posted by picasso
