Summary: You’ll be shocked when you read the legal brief the Washington Redskins have recently used in their defense in court.
The Washington Redskins have long been a controversial team – but it has nothing to do with how they play football.
Instead, the conflict is about their name. American Indians in particular started a complaint about what they call a team named after a racist epithet. Other Americans quickly got on board, but the Redskins have insisted that their name is not only not offensive, but even respectful.
This past year, however, the U.S. Patent and Trademark office made the decision to revoke the ‘Skins’ trademark. The decision was then upheld by a federal judge this summer. The football team has brought the case to the court of appeals, and they recently filed their opening brief.
Their defense argued that upholding their patent was a First Amendment issue. The Trademark Office, however, held that the name offends enough people and violated the Lanham Act, which prohibits First Amendment protection for names that “may disparage” people.
And here’s where it really gets interesting.
The Redskins’ defense insisted that the Trademark Office hadn’t followed that standard for countless other companies. The team’s tactic included listing the offensive names of other companies whose trademarks the Patent and Trademark office has allowed, saying, “The PTO has registered hundreds if not thousands of marks that the Team believes are racist, or misogynistic, vulgar, or otherwise offensive.”
Then followed a list of appallingly ugly names, including TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing, DANGEROUS NEGRO shirts, TWATTY GIRL cartoons, RETARDIPEDIA website, and JIZZ underwear.
These are just a few of the names the Redskins listed, including several that the Washington Post refused to publish. The list continued to include MARIJUANA FOR SALE, CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, LICENSED SERIAL KILLER, YID DISH, DIRTY WHOOORE CLOTHING COMPANY, and MURDER 4 HIRE.
These names were represented as distasteful names that the Redskins cited as equally bad or worse than their trademark. And, they insisted, there were countless other examples, and only “word limits prevent[ed] [them] from listing more.”
But is “other people do it, too” a reasonable excuse for bad behavior? We’ll have to see what the Federal Court of Appeals holds. But, regardless, it’s still bizarre to see these vulgarities in a court brief.
Sources:
http://deadspin.com/the-skins-latest-court-filing-is-comically-vulgar-1740262036