Skip to main content

Why Redskins decision is wrong

By Marc Randazza
updated 2:36 PM EDT, Sat June 21, 2014
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
  • Marc Randazza: Redskins lost trademark registration for name. News leaves 2 issue to consider
  • But Redskins still have trademark rights, can sue infringers, keep using racist term to identify team
  • Case raises First Amendment issues; why is trademark office arbiter of morality? he asks
  • Randazza: Trademarks are protected expression. Coercive censorship at play here

Editor's note: Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author.

(CNN) -- The Washington Redskins find themselves under (deserved) fire for their name, which many Native Americans and others find to be a racial slur. Previously the target of protests and opprobrium, the Redskins have now lost their federal trademark registration for the name, as it was deemed too disparaging to remain protected. There are two issue to consider here: one is technical and the other is one we should all find troubling.

The first: This case was about a trademark, and the primary purpose of trademark law is to protect the public so that the public can accurately know the source or origin of goods and services. But headlines that say the Redskins lost their trademark are inaccurate.

Marc Randazza
Marc Randazza

All they lost was their trademark registration, not the right to use the racist term to identify their team -- and that is a key point. In the United States, trademark rights flow from an organization using the trademark; technically, you don't need to register a trademark in order to have trademark rights. (In other countries, you need a registration).

With its common law rights intact, the team is free to continue to call itself the "Redskins." Moreover, it can still sue you for selling counterfeit Washington Redskins gear, and it can still block someone from starting a Washington Redskins dodgeball team. The Washington Redskins still have trademark rights, and strong rights at that.

If the team owners still have rights in the trademark, why is losing the registration a big deal? What does a registration give you? It gives you a few statutory presumptions in the event that you go to court over enforcement of your trademark. It gives a presumption of ownership and validity. In simple terms, the cancellation only means that if there is a trademark infringement lawsuit, the Washington Redskins team is going to have to pay a bit more in attorneys' fees to win its case.

Opinion: Is end near for Redskins? It's about time

But nobody can seriously argue that Dan Snyder's football team is not the owner of the still-intact trademark rights, nor that the public associates his team with the racist name.

The second issue: There is something even more offensive than the team's name: The fact that this case happened at all. The decision, I believe, has First Amendment implications that we shouldn't ignore.

Anti-Redskins ad airs during NBA finals
Anti-Redskins ad airs during NBA finals

I do not care whether you like or dislike the Washington Redskins' name. I think it's a pretty dumb thing to call a football team. If Native Americans believe that "redskin" is offensive to them, then it is. Most people agree that it is about as offensive as using any other ethnic slur. I respect their position and their argument.

Seattle Times gets rid of 'Redskins,' joins rising tide against name

Nevertheless, here are my criticisms of this decision: Section (2)(a) of the Trademark Act bars the registration of any trademark that is "immoral" "scandalous" or "disparaging." In other words, a civil servant executing the registration is allowed to be the arbiter of morality. Do we really want that?

Trademarks propose a commercial transaction. When you see or hear a trademark, you immediately receive information in a short-hand way that communicates where the products come from, or what level of service you can expect. Trademarks are First Amendment protected expression. There should be no issue with limiting their use to mislead the public. After all, what point do they serve if they do not propose a truthful association with their owner? And what rational governmental purpose does it serve to deny a benefit to a business because it might be deemed "immoral" by someone?

And why are we even arguing the point? The government should not be in the business of deciding what is moral, immoral, or offensive. This section of the trademark act is a leftover from Victorian times, and is used now primarily to promote social agendas with coercive censorship.

To justify such censorship, the government must demonstrate that the harms it seeks to address are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. In addition, the courts have found, such a restriction "may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose." These mandates are "critical," for otherwise "[the government] could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression."

In this case, what is the governmental purpose in depriving the Redskins of their trademark registration? Is it that the government is serving as a morality teacher? Is it choosing a favored position, and then enforcing it by only giving government benefits to companies that agree with that orthodoxy?

Do you trust any government to tell you what your morality should be? If so, do you trust this government to do that?

Remember, even if you're one of the well-intentioned many who think that the name is disgusting, do you want to surrender your First Amendment rights to the next group who might find your morality to be outside the norm? I do not. While I think that Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team, I think that the government should remain neutral in the matter.

Follow us on Twitter @CNNOpinion.

Join us on Facebook.com/CNNOpinion.

ADVERTISEMENT
Part of complete coverage on
updated 2:12 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
By now it should be painfully obvious that this latest round of the Israeli-Palestinian crisis in Gaza is fundamentally different than its predecessors.
updated 5:24 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
Sally Kohn says like the Occupy Wall Street protesters, Market Basket workers are asking for shared prosperity.
updated 7:31 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
President Obama will convene an Africa summit Monday at the White House, and Laurie Garrett asks why the largest Ebola epidemic ever recorded is not on the agenda.
updated 2:03 PM EDT, Fri August 1, 2014
Seventy years ago, Anne Frank made her final entry in her diary -- a work, says Francine Prose, that provides a crucial link to history for young people.
updated 7:50 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Van Jones says "student" debt should be called "education debt" because entire families are paying the cost.
updated 3:41 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Stuart Gitlow says pot is addictive and those who smoke it can experience long-term psychiatric disease.
updated 7:00 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Marc Randazza: ESPN commentator fell victim to "PC" police for suggesting something outside accepted narrative.
updated 2:45 PM EDT, Thu July 31, 2014
Mark O'Mara says working parents often end up being arrested after leaving kids alone.
updated 4:31 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Shanin Specter says we need to strengthen laws that punish auto companies for selling defective cars.
updated 12:45 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Gabby Giffords and Katie Ray-Jones say "Between 2001 and 2012, more women were shot to death by an intimate partner in our country than the total number of American troops killed in the Iraq and Afghanistan wars combined."
updated 7:58 AM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Vijay Das says Medicare is a success story that could provide health care for everybody, not just seniors
updated 1:43 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
S.E. Cupp says the entrepreneur and Dallas Mavericks owner thinks for himself and refuses to be confined to an ideological box.
updated 9:11 AM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
A Christian group's anger over the trailer for "Black Jesus," an upcoming TV show, seems out of place, Jay Parini says
updated 4:28 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
LZ Granderson says the cyber-standing ovation given to Robyn Lawley, an Australian plus-size model who posted unretouched photos, shows how crazy Americans' notions of beauty have become
updated 3:39 PM EDT, Wed July 30, 2014
Carol Dweck and Rachel Simmons: Girls tend to have a "fixed mindset" but they should have a "growth mindset."
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT