September 21, 2016 The Skanner MINORITY BUSINESS ENTERPRISE EDITION Page 11
MBE 2016
Special Business Edition
Redskins, Rock Band Battle Government in Trademark Fight
Portland band The Slants ind themselves in odd company with Washington’s NFL team
By SAM HANANEL
Associated Press
the First Amendment
protects “even hurtful
speech that harms mem-
bers of ot-stigmatized
communities.”
“The First Amendment
forbids government reg-
ulators to deny registra-
tion because they ind
the speech likely to of-
fend others,” Judge Kim-
berly Moore said for the
majority.
ANTHONY PIDGEON/REDFERNS VIA AP
WASHINGTON — Si-
mon Tam has openly crit-
icized the Washington
Redskins team name as a
racist slur that demeans
Native Americans.
But Tam and his
Asian-American
rock
band, The Slants, ind
themselves on the same
side as the NFL franchise
in a First Amendment
legal battle over trade-
mark protection for
names that some consid-
er ofensive.
The Supreme Court
could decide as early as
this month whether to
members of the very
group they claim to sa-
lute. The Redskins case
involves the trademark
oice’s move last year
to cancel the team trade-
mark that was irst reg-
istered in 1967. A federal
judge has agreed with
that decision.
A federal appeals court
in Richmond, Virginia,
has not yet considered
the team’s appeal, but
the Redskins are urging
the Supreme Court not
to wait. If the high court
agrees to hear the Slants
case, the team wants the
justices to hear both dis-
putes at the same time.
Such requests to leap-
This photo provided by Anthony Pidgeon, taken Aug. 21, 2015, shows
the Asian-American band The Slants, from left, Joe X Jiang, Ken Shima,
Tyler Chen, Simon “Young” Tam, Joe X Jiang in Old Town Chinatown,
Portland, Ore. The Supreme Court could decide as early as this month
whether to hear the dispute involving the Portland, Oregon-area
band. And if the Washington Redskins football team has its way, the
justices could hear both cases in its new term.
hear the dispute involv-
ing the Portland, Ore-
gon-area band. And if
the football team has its
way, the justices could
hear both cases in its new
term.
At issue is a constitu-
tional challenge to a law
barring the U.S. Patent
and Trademark Oice
from registering trade-
marks that disparage
minority groups. The of-
ice denied a trademark
to the Slants in 2011 ater
inding the name dispar-
aged people of Asian de-
scent.
The Slants say their
goal was not to ofend
anyone, but to transform
a derisive term about the
shape of Asian eyes into
a statement of ethnic and
cultural pride. The band
won a major victory last
year when a divided
federal appeals court in
the District of Columbia
ruled the law prohibiting
ofensive trademarks vi-
olates free-speech rights.
The Obama administra-
tion has asked the Su-
preme Court to overturn
that ruling.
The Redskins, too, say
their team name is meant
to honor American In-
dians. But the team has
faced years of legal chal-
lenges, and a testy pub-
lic relations ight, from
frog lower courts are
rarely granted.
Tam, in a legal brief,
says if the court decides
to hear the cases togeth-
er, the justices should do
so now rather than wait-
ing for the appeals court
to rule in the Redskins
case. Otherwise, he says,
a future ruling against
the Redskins could end
up afecting the band’s
status.
Anyone who has vis-
ited The Slants’ website
will ind the band mem-
bers are certainly no
fans of the team. One
section has a lengthy list
of reasons why the cas-
es are diferent. No. 1 is
“unlike REDSKINS, THE
SLANTS is not an inher-
ent racial slur.”
The website says the
word Redskin “has a long
history of oppression”
and “the football team
treats the people as mas-
cots.” By contrast, The
Slants “breaks stereo-
types about Asian-Amer-
icans, especially in the
entertainment industry.”
Tam does not mention
those distinctions in his
brief to the court, and
he declined to be inter-
viewed.
In The Slants case, the
U.S. Court of Appeals
for the Federal Circuit
ruled in December that
The
administration
argues that the law does
not restrict speech be-
“
relects Congress’ judg-
ment that the federal
government should not
‘The First Amendment for-
bids government regulators
to deny registration’
cause the band is still
free to use the name even
without trademark pro-
tection. The law “simply
airmatively
promote
the use of racial slurs and
other disparaging terms
by granting the beneits
of registration,” the gov-
ernment said.
Jeremy Shef, a profes-
sor at St. John’s Univer-
sity School of Law who
specializes in intellec-
tual property, said the
Supreme Court could be
interested in the cases
because it has been “pret-
ty aggressive” in protect-
ing First Amendment
speech.