All in the best possible taste
Where do you draw the line between what is acceptable to profit from and what is not?
For the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the question would seem, on the surface, fairly clear cut. In a long anticipated decision, which culminated in June, the office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) comprehensively cancelled six trademarks belonging to the Washington Redskins American football team.
The trademarks all contained variations of the word ‘Redskin’, which is widely regarded in modern society as being a racial and disparaging slur.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans,” the TTAB wrote in its ruling.
The decision was a sure-fire sign that the USPTO would not accept the possibility of an organisation or individual profiting from an offensive or rude word.
But, as some have argued, if the word was not offensive in the late 1960s, when the team was granted the first of its trademarks, it should be able to hold on to them.
In most jurisdictions, a trademark’s offensiveness or perceived controversy is based on its meaning at the time of application. The TTAB said it recognised this and that even when the trademarks were registered the term was still disparaging to a “substantial portion” of Native Americans.
Already registered?
Login to your account
If you don't have a login or your access has expired, you will need to purchase a subscription to gain access to this article, including all our online content.
For more information on individual annual subscriptions for full paid access and corporate subscription options please contact us.
To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.
For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk