Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
The factual accuracy of this article is disputed. Please see the relevant discussion on the talk page. |
Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 415 F.3d 44 (D.C. Cir. 2005), is a case in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the decision of the Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) to cancel the registration of the Washington Redskins football team, based on the claim that the name was disparging to Native Americans.
[edit] Facts
In 1992, activist Suzan Harjo led seven Native Americans in petitioning the TTAB to cancel six trademark registrations used by the Washington Redskins and owned by Pro-Football, Inc. The TTAB granted the petition, and the owner appealed to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, which overturned the cancellation on two grounds. The District Court found that the TTAB lacked substantial evidence to find dispargement, and that the petition was barred by laches - an equitable legal theory which prohibits a party from waiting so long to file a claim that it becomes unfair to the other party. The Redskins had registered their marks as early as 1967 - when the youngest of the complainants was one year old. The complainants then appealed this decision to the Court of Appeals.
[edit] Issue
The Court of Appeals was presented with several question:
- Whether the complainants had indeed presented "substantial evidence" to the TTAB
- whether a laches defense should apply at all in a dispargement case; and
- if such a defense should apply, whether it would bar these particular complainants.
[edit] Opinion
The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court on both grounds.
Reviewing the evidence presented to the TTAB - primarily surveys, dictionary definitions, and uses in media such as Western-genre films - the Court of Appeals quickly found it to be a sufficient basis for the TTAB decision, and moved on to the more complicated question of laches.
The Native Americans claimed that laches should not apply to a dispargement claim at all, because the law specifies that such a claim can be brought "at any time". The Court rejected this, noting that other language in the same statute specifically permits equitable defenses, and laches is such a defense. The Court then considered the applicability of laches to the case at hand. Because the defense depends on the laxity of the plaintiff in pursuing his rights - which can not effectively be pursued until the plaintiff has reached the age of majority - the Court found that the defense could not be applied against the one plaintiff who had been a minor until recently, and therefore that the plaintiff had not slept on his rights.
The Court acknowledged the assertion by the owner that this finding would leave trademarks disparaging a group with a constantly expanding population "perpetually at risk":
- The fact that Pro-Football may never have security in its trademark registrations stems from Congress's decision not to set a statute of limitations and instead to authorize petitions for cancellation based on dispargement "at any time".
