WIPR survey: Readers disagree with SCOTUS claim

Appointing a ninth justice at the US Supreme Court could influence proceedings in the Redskins and Slants cases, according to WIPR readers.

Last week, May 11, WIPR hosted a webinar called “Disparaging marks: The Redskins, The Slants and the USPTO”.

In it, one of the speakers said that appointing a ninth judge would not influence the two cases.

After we asked our readers whether they agreed, 66% of readers said they did not.

National Football League club the Washington Redskins and US rock band The Slants are both challenging section 2(a) of the US’s Lanham Act in separate lawsuits.

The Slants case, called In re Tam, centres on The Slants’s application to trademark its own name while the Washington Redskins is attempting to overturn a ruling that cancelled six trademarks that include the term ‘Redskins’. That case is called Blackhorse v Pro Football.

A ‘slant’ and a ‘redskin’ are slang words for Asian people and Native Americans respectively.

In December last year, an en banc US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled that a decision by the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to deny The Slants a trademark violated its First Amendment rights.

In 2014, the Washington Redskins’s trademarks were cancelled by the USPTO after they were challenged by a group of Native Americans led by Amanda Blackhorse. The US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia upheld the cancellations.

Petitions for certiorari filed by the USPTO in the Tam case and by the Redskins in Pro Football are pending before the US Supreme Court.

For this week’s survey, we ask: “The International Trademark Association’s annual meeting kicks off on May 21. What do you think such industry conferences are most useful for? Learning or networking? Please explain your answer.”