Oklahoma Law Review Volume 68 Number 4 2016 Blackhawk Down or Blackhorse Down? The Lanham Act’s Prohibition of Trademarks that “May Disparage” & the First Amendment Russ VerSteeg Professor, New England Law | Boston Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr Part of the First Amendment Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Recommended Citation Russ VerSteeg, Blackhawk Down or Blackhorse Down? The Lanham Act’s Prohibition of Trademarks that “May Disparage” & the First Amendment, 68 OKLA. L. REV. 677 (2016), https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol68/iss4/1 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Oklahoma Law Review by an authorized editor of University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW VOLUME 68 SUMMER 2016 NUMBER 4 BLACKHAWK DOWN OR BLACKHORSE DOWN? THE LANHAM ACT’S PROHIBITION OF TRADEMARKS THAT “MAY DISPARAGE” & THE FIRST AMENDMENT * RUSS VERSTEEG [A] function of free speech . is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging. It may strike at prejudices and preconceptions and have profound unsettling effects . [T]he alternative would lead to standardization of ideas either by legislatures, courts, or dominant political or community groups.1 —Justice William O. Douglas Introduction During the past three decades the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB), and our federal courts have examined the “may disparage” prohibition of § 2(a) of * Professor, New England Law | Boston. I’m indebted to Barry Stearns and Brian Flaherty, Research Librarians at New England Law | Boston, for their outstanding contributions. Thanks also to Nathan Hall, Lindsay Kistler, and the staff at the Oklahoma Law Review for their hard work and help. I would also like to thank Kimberley Maruncic, who initially suggested that I write about this topic. Discussions with her about the issues helped to shape my thinking, and I simply would not have and could not have written this article without her encouragement. 1. Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U.S. 1, 4-5, reh’g denied, 337 U.S. 934 (1949). 677 Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital Commons, 2016 678 OKLAHOMA LAW REVIEW [Vol. 68:677 the Lanham Act on several occasions.2 The cases that have garnered the most public attention and stirred both debate and controversy have focused on the National Football League’s (NFL) trademark for the Washington Redskins.3 If trademark law prevents federal registration for Native American terms such as “Redskins,” is it also likely that other, more benign names such as Cleveland “Indians,” Atlanta “Braves,” Kansas City “Chiefs,”4 Golden State “Warriors” (the 2015 NBA Champions), and 2. See, e.g., Joshua R. Ernst & Daniel C. Lumm, Does Budda Beachwear Actually Fit? An Analysis of Federal Registration for Allegedly Disparaging Trademarks in the Non- Corporate Context, 10 WAKE FOREST INTELL. PROP. L.J. 177, 177 (2009-2010) (“While the TTAB has developed its disparaging mark jurisprudence with respect to individuals as a distinct bar to registration over the last twenty years; the Federal Courts have only considered the TTAB's treatment of these allegedly disparaging marks once during the same span of time.”). 3. See, e.g., Christian Dennie, Native American Mascots and Team Names: Throw Away the Key; The Lanham Act Is Locked for Future Trademark Challenges, 15 SETON HALL J. SPORTS & ENT. L. 197, 199 (2005) (“The Washington Redskins' mascot, team name, and team fight song, as well as the use of other Native American names and mascots in professional, college, and high school sports have been heavily scrutinized over the last decade.”); Ernst & Lumm, supra note 2, at 179 (“The central contention of the American Indians' claim is that the REDSKINS family of marks is disparaging, in derogation of the requirements for federal trademark registration.”); Jason Finkelstein, Note, What the Sioux Should Do: Lanham Act Challenges in the Post-Harjo Era, 26 CARDOZO ARTS & ENT. L.J. 301, 306 (2008) (“Hundreds of collegiate and high school athletic programs have likewise adopted Native American names, mascots and logos.”); Jessica M. Kiser, How Dykes on Bikes Got It Right: Procedural Inequities Inherent in the Trademark Office’s Review of Disparaging Trademarks, 46 U.S.F. L. REV. 1, 12-16 (2011) (summarizing the Harjo litigation); Justin Reiner, Proud Traditions: Reflections of a Lifelong Washington Redskins Fan on the Harjo Decisions & the Use of Native American Names in Sports, 2 WILLAMETTE SPORTS L.J. 1, 2 (2005), http://willamette.edu/law/pdf/sportslaw/spring05/final_traditions. pdf (“Conflicting viewpoints and contrary perspectives are key reasons why the debate over the use of Native American names in sports continues and why the owners steadfastly oppose changing the name of their team. The support of loyal fans and staunch traditionalists provides owners with an additional reason to stay the course. Conversely, the viewpoints of Native Americans, along with the passionate opposition of the use of these names in sports by other groups, provide Native Americans with a reason to pursue further avenues of resolve.”). 4. See Julie A. Hopkins & Thomas M. Joraanstad, Challenge-Flag Thrown: The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s Cancellation of the Redskins’ Trademarks and Pro- Football’s Chances on Appeal, 10 J. BUS. & TECH. L. 267, 270 (2015) (“In 1963, the Dallas Texans relocated to Kansas City and were renamed the Chiefs, the last professional sports team to adopt a Native American mascot.”). https://digitalcommons.law.ou.edu/olr/vol68/iss4/1 2016] LANHAM ACT’S PROHIBITION OF TRADEMARKS 679 Chicago “Blackhawks” (the 2015 Stanley Cup Champions) will also be axed (or should we say “tomahawked”)?5 In April of 2015, however, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) focused its analytical lens much more sharply to ask one specific question about this issue; namely, whether the “may disparage” prohibition of § 2(a) of the Lanham Act violates the First Amendment.6 The case that has brought the issue to a head is In re Tam, a case involving the PTO’s 5. In addition to these teams, the history of professional sports has seen numerous other teams whose names and logos some might find offensive. For example, the now defunct NHL Kansas City Scouts used a logo of an Indian riding a horse. The Scouts initially wanted to use the name “Mohawks” coupled with an Indian-head logo but met opposition from the Chicago Blackhawks organization. See STEPHEN LAROCHE, CHANGING THE GAME: A HISTORY OF NHL EXPANSION 234 (Michael Holmes ed., 2014). For discussion regarding the potential for further litigation challenging team names other than the Redskins, see for example, Dennie, supra note 3, at 208 (“The Harjo court noted further that finding that such a small amount of questionable evidence sufficient to cancel these trademarks would mean that virtually all professional sports teams with similar marks would have to refrain from activity that could be construed as even mildly insulting or derogatory to Native Americans.”) (citing Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96, 134 (D.D.C. 2003); id. at 211 (“‘Redskins,’ however, is an anomaly. It is wholly distinguishable from other Native American names and symbols currently used by sports teams.”); Ernst & Lumm, supra note 2, at 204 (“[A] successful cancellation of the REDSKINS family of marks as a result of the Blackhorse cancellation proceedings will call into the question the eligibility for registration of other sports teams' registered marks.”); Rachel Clark Hughey, The Impact of Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo on Trademark Protection of Other Marks, 14 FORDHAM INTELL. PROP., MEDIA & ENT. L.J. 327, 360 (2004) (“Many other Native Americans suggest that the term ‘redskin’ offends them, but terms like ‘braves,’ ‘Seminoles,’ and ‘Sioux’ do not. Suzan Harjo called the term ‘redskin’ ‘the worst name you can call Native Americans in the English language.’”) (footnotes omitted); see also André Douglas Pond Cummings, Progress Realized?: The Continuing American Indian Mascot Quandary, 18 MARQ. SPORTS L. REV. 309, 332 (2008) (“Of the primary professional sports leagues in the United States, specifically the NFL, Major League Baseball (MLB), the National Basketball Association (NBA) and the National Hockey League (NHL), each league maintains at least one club that uses an offensive American Indian moniker, mascot, and/or logo.”); cf. John R. Wallace, Note, Discriminatory & Disparaging Team Names, Logos, & Mascots: Workable Challenges & the Misapplication of the Doctrine of Laches, 12 RUTGERS RACE & L. REV. 203, 208 (2011) (“It is important to note that ‘[n]ames like “Cowboys,” “Vikings,” or “Fighting Irish” do not have comparable effects because the history of each of these groups is one of inclusion and survival, rather than exclusion and potential cultural extinction.’") (quoting Justin G. Blankenship, The Cancellation of Redskins as a Disparaging Trademark: Is Federal Trademark Law an Appropriate Solution for Words that Offend?, 72 U. COLO. LAW REV. 415, 424 (2001)). 6. In re Tam, 600 F. App’x 775 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Published by University of Oklahoma College of Law Digital