The Redskins yesterday "lost the biggest legal and public relations battle yet in the war" over the team's name when a federal judge "ordered the cancellation of [the club's] federal trademark registrations, opposed for decades by Native American activists who call the name disparaging," according to Ian Shapira of the WASHINGTON POST. The cancellation "doesn’t go into effect until the team has exhausted the appeals process in the federal court system." Redskins President Bruce Allen yesterday vowed that the team "would appeal." But Shapira notes even if the Redskins ultimately take the case to the U.S. Supreme Court and lose, the team "can still use 'Redskins' and seek trademark protection under state law." The team has argued, however, that a cancellation of its trademarks "could taint its brand and remove legal benefits that would protect it against copycat entrepreneurs." U.S. District Judge Gerald Lee’s decision yesterday "affirmed an earlier ruling" by the federal Trademark Trial & Appeal Board. Lee "questioned why the team ever chose the name, pointing out in his ruling that Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defined the word as 'often contemptuous' in 1898" (WASHINGTON POST, 7/9). In N.Y., Ken Belson writes yesterday's ruling was "a blow to the team" and "another headache for NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell, who grew up rooting for the team and has stood by owner Dan Snyder’s decision to resist calls to change the name and logo" (N.Y. TIMES, 7/9). Meanwhile, in DC, Andrea Noble in a front-page piece notes DC officials have "tried to lure" the Redskins back to the city with a stadium proposal. However, the National Park Service this month said that it "won’t grant a lease of the land for the stadium because Interior Secretary Sally Jewell opposes the team’s name" (WASHINGTON TIMES, 7/9).
NAME SHAME: USA TODAY's Christine Brennan writes under the header, "Beginning Of The End For Redskins Nickname." The timing of yesterday's ruling "couldn't be worse" for the NFL, and quite a few more years "of headlines, conversation and controversy are in our future." Brennan: "With every legal filing, with every courtroom a lawyer enters, with every pronouncement from the team or its opponents or a judge, the story of the racist team name stays in the news." The more the team "has to defend the name, the more the controversy sticks around." No business "wants to look old or dated or be seen as being behind the times," but "that's exactly where we find Snyder and his team" on this issue (USA TODAY, 7/9). In DC, Thom Loverro writes the team has "been forced into the reality of moving one step closer to being called something other than the name it brought down with it from Boston nearly 80 years ago." There is "no denying that the ruling is a serious setback to the franchise and its fans." It is also "an alarm to other sports teams," particularly the Braves and Indians, that the names on which they built their businesses are "under attack." A setback like yesterday's ruling "may start that social media snowball that rolls" all the way into an NFL sponsor's corporate HQ (WASHINGTON TIMES, 7/9). Also in DC, Jennifer Harper in a front-page piece notes many pro and college teams have "changed their names in response to similar pressures" to those faced by the Redskins, but it is "complicated." For example, the Univ. of North Carolina-Pembroke "remains the home of the 'Braves.'" But there is "some justification." The campus was founded in 1887 "by and for American Indians," and 20% of the students "currently enrolled are American Indians." Meanwhile, 17 other universities "stopped using their American Indian athletic symbols because they were judged 'hostile or abusive'" by the NCAA (WASHINGTON TIMES, 7/9).
