WP: Supreme Court refuses to hear Redskins' naming case

Big win for the team, but big loss of my respect. They need to take it on themselves to change the name.

WP:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who claimed that the Washington Redskins' team name is so offensive that it does not deserve trademark protection.

The court without comment refused to get involved in the long-running dispute. The decision essentially lets stand a lower court ruling that the activists waited too long to bring the challenge.

The team has been known as the Redskins since 1933, when the name was changed from the Boston Braves. It became the Washington Redskins in 1937, when the team moved south.

The lawsuit was filed in 1992, when seven activists challenged a Redskins trademark issued in 1967. They won seven years later in a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which said the name could be interpreted as offensive to Native Americans. The case is Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Trademark law prohibits registration of a name that "may disparage . . . persons, living or dead, . . . or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."

The team appealed to federal court.

Judges at the district and circuit levels said the activists' trademark cancellation claim was barred by the doctrine of laches, which serves as a defense against claims that should have been made long ago.

The activists argued that disparaging trademarks can be challenged at any time, citing a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit. The decision was written by then-judgeSamuel A. Alito Jr., who now sits on the Supreme Court.

But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit said that was merely a "suggestion" of how to interpret the law.

The federal district judge who heard the lawsuit also said the activists had not proven that the name was disparaging.

The Supreme Court considered only the question of whether the suit was barred because of the passage of too much time.

LA Times: 'Redskins' is no honor, it's an insult

I've often been hesitant to say that I am a true "Redskins" fan, because while I am a big fan of the team that plays at in Landover and calls our nation's capital home, I absolutely loath the name "Redskins." It is so offensively racist, and I have no idea why it hasn't been changed. They changed the Bullets to the Wizards because DC had too many homicides. We are the nation's capital. What does it tell you when the most profitable team in our nation's capital is a racist name. I believe it was Chris Rock who made the comparison that the Washington Redskins was exactly the same as have a team called the Newark N!ggers.

I really hope some of the Redskins players stand up and speak out about this.

Here is a piece written by Bill Plaschke of the LA Times:

On a Saturday night in New York, the sports world vilifies Serena Williams for raining threats upon a line judge.

Yet a day later across the river, the same sports world celebrates a team whose nickname is considered a threat to an entire ethnic group.

Redskins.

A pro football season begins with two noted players banished to the sidelines for "conduct detrimental to the integrity of, and confidence in, the National Football League."

Yet that same league supports a team whose entire identity is forged through a symbol of detrimental conduct known as racism.

Redskins.

It remains one of the great mysteries in sports, a 77-year-old crime that remains largely ignored and purposely unsolved.

How does a team from the nation's capital, supported by a fan base of some of the nation's greatest thinkers, maintain a nickname that is the Native American equivalent to the N-word?

Redskins?

"It is the worst thing in the English language you can be called if you are a native person," said Suzan Shown Harjo, a Native American writer and public policy advocate who is the lead plaintiff in one of the most compelling lawsuits in sports history.

Seventeen years after challenging the Washington Redskins trademark, Harjo and six others have renewed their fight, petitioning the Supreme Court to examine a lower-court ruling that denied their challenge on a technicality.

It was announced Monday that Harjo's group will appeal the decision that their challenge was made too late and falls outside the statute of limitations.

The Redskins, named in 1933, were registered as a trademark during a vastly different racial climate in 1967.

Harjo's group challenges that, now and then, the trademark violates the Lanham Act, which bars trademarks that "disparage" people living or dead.

She's on time. Of the several high-profile Native American nicknames still alive in sports, nothing is more clearly disparaging than this one.

While the Braves, Indians, Chiefs and Blackhawks all describe a group of people, the Redskin is the clear slur of an individual.

Look it up. It is listed as "offensive" in most dictionaries, and as the name given an Indian hunter's bounty in several historical publications.

"It is basically characterizing a person by their skin," Harjo said. "How wrong is that?"

The NFL and the Redskins counter with an argument found on Page 326 of the team's media guide, citing that the word "Redskin" actually refers to the red paint used on the skin of Indian warriors.

A league spokesman said they stand by the Redskins in this battle and, in fact, the NFL has paid much of the Redskins' legal fees.

Amazing, isn't it, how the sports world demands civility and good conduct only as long as it doesn't get in the way of tradition? When it comes to Native American mascots, insensitivity dies especially hard.

Chief Illiniwek has been banned from the University of Illinois, yet fans still stand up during halftime of football games and chant his name during the traditional time for his appearance.

Some fans at otherwise educated Dartmouth and Stanford, even though they have long since banned their Indian mascots, still show up at games with painted faces on their shirts.

"People lose their sense of discernment when it comes to sports," Harjo said. "With this particular issue, people just lose their minds."

Particularly in pro sports, and particularly in Washington, where one man's insult has become another man's birthright, and rationalizations run rampant.

It's stunning how many people there will insist that the word "Redskins" pays tribute to Native Americans . . . even though none of those people are Native American.

"They say, 'You're being honored' . . . we say, 'We're being offended,' " explained Harjo. "They say honored. We say offended. Then they just tell us to shut up."

Unlike the Seminoles of Florida State, there is no tribe that supports "Redskin." Unlike with some other mascots such as Warriors, there are no Native American groups that are even lukewarm about it.

"All national Indian groups support us," said Harjo, who is president of the Morning Star Institute, a Washington-based native cultural organization.

There is, in fact, precedent for changing the Redskins mascot, as it has already been deleted from major-college sports with little impact.

Miami of Ohio has become the RedHawks, and it didn't seem to bother quarterback Ben Roethlisberger.

The University of Utah has become the Utes, who weren't any less tough when they nearly stole a national football championship last year.

The name can be changed. The name should be changed. There is not a bigger certifiable slur in sports. There is nothing even close.

And don't even try to compare this to the Fighting Irish, OK?

If you saw a Native American on the street, would you call that person a redskin?

"It's like putting Aunt Jemima on a helmet," Harjo said.

There has long been an argument that young native Americans don't mind being used as sports symbols, but Harjo isn't buying that as a factor.

"Lots of people are saying, 'Just let us have our gambling and we'll stay out of the way,' " she said. "That doesn't make it right."

Some say Redskins owner Daniel Snyder will never make it right because it will cost too much money in merchandising. But imagine the riches he would reap with new apparel.

Some say NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell would never dare mess with one of the league's cornerstone franchises. But what better way to cement his growing legacy as a curator of equality and fairness?

Of course, it is a formidable task, fighting both men.

"We aren't just fighting Coke, we're fighting Pepsi backed by Coke," Harjo said.

And, indeed, it is a fight they lose every day.

"We are the invisible population," she said of the approximately 4 million Native Americans. "So racism against our population is also invisible."

Then again, there is this:

The original lawsuit was filed in 1992, after the Redskins' Super Bowl victory over the Buffalo Bills. At the time, the Redskins had appeared in four Super Bowls in the previous 10 years.

In the 17 years since, they have appeared in exactly zero Super Bowls.

Hail to the what, exactly?

WP: Appeals Court Sides With Team In Suit Challenging Trademark

I am a devoted Redskins fan, though I have to admit that throughout the years, the most disappointing thing about the team has not been their failure to get past the first round of the play-offs or develop successful draft prospects or even negotiate adequate deals with free agents, but the fact that they are STILL called the REDSKINS. DC changed the name of the Washington Bullets to the Wizards because DC was too violent. Several college teams have toned down their Native American mascots to make them more dignified. There are a number of professional and college teams with Native American mascots, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Florida Seminoles, etc. The Notre Dame Fighting Irish is even endearing. But the REDSKINS? Seriously? REDskins? We are the nation's capitol. Foreign dignitaries visit DC on a daily basis. REDSKINS? South Africa would still be under sanctions if Cape Town's professional cricket team was called the Bantu.

I'm not asking for anything crazy, but the DC government should urge the Redskin's ownership to change the name of the team if for nothing more, for posterity. I'm only 1/16 Native American, but as a person of color, I think any mascot specifically referring to an ethnicity, race, religion, etc is offensive. Imagine the Newark Niggers. Seriously, REDSKINS?

WP:

A federal appeals court yesterday handed the Washington Redskins another victory in their long-running legal dispute with Native American activists over the team's name.

The appeals court did not address whether the name was offensive but upheld a federal judge's ruling last year that a Native American man had waited too long to challenge six Redskins trademarks.

An attorney for the activists, Philip J. Mause, said he was reviewing the opinion and had not decided whether to appeal.

His clients "are very frustrated that it has taken so long to get the legal system to come to grips with this and to come up with a definitive resolution," he said.

Attorneys for the National Football League franchise say the name is a sign of honor but are also fighting to protect millions of dollars' worth of sales of Redskins merchandise. If the team had lost in court, it could have continued to use the name on Redskins paraphernalia but would have faced a tougher time preventing merchants from infringing on its trademarks.

The dispute started in 1992, when seven Native American activists challenged the trademarks in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In 1999, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sided with the activists, ruling that the team had no right to trademark the name. Pro-Football Inc., the team's corporate owner, appealed to federal court.

In 2003, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly sided with the team, ruling that the activists had not produced enough evidence to show the name was so insulting that it could not be protected by a trademark. The judge also found that the activists had waited too long to file their challenge. An appeals court in 2005 asked the judge to revisit the delay issue because one activist, Mateo Romero, might have legal standing. He was born in 1966.

Kollar-Kotelly ruled in July that Romero was well aware of the Redskins name before he turned 18, eight years before he filed the complaint with the other activists.

The judge found that the delay unfairly penalized the Redskins, who invested millions of dollars marketing the team during that eight-year span.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit yesterday upheld Kollar-Kotelly's decision.

"Eight years is a long time -- a delay made only more unreasonable by Romero's acknowledged exposure to various Redskins trademarks well before reaching" 18, wrote Judge David S. Tatel, who was joined in the 10-page opinion by Chief Judge David B. Sentelle and Judge Karen LeCraft Henderson.

"We thus think it neither a stretch of the imagination nor an abuse of discretion to conclude that Pro-Football might have invested differently in its branding of the Redskins and related entities had Romero acted earlier to place the trademark in doubt," Tatel wrote.

Robert Raskopf, an attorney for the team, said the decision "was a great win. It's wonderful for the fans of the club, the team and Dan Snyder," its owner.

Suzan Shown Harjo, one of the activists, said a group of younger Native Americans was ready to challenge the trademarks if any appeals are unsuccessful.

Harjo is president of the Morning Star Institute, a national Indian rights organization.