Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

burden of prooftrademark
trademark

Related Cases

Continental T.V., Inc. v. G.T.E. Sylvania Inc., 694 F.2d 1132, 1982-2 Trade Cases P 64,962, 1982-83 Trade Cases P 65,150
View Case »
Lafler v. Athletic Bd. of Control, 536 F.Supp. 104
View Case »
Ventura v. Titan Sports, Inc., 65 F.3d 725
View Case »
Dunham v. Pulsifer, 312 F.Supp. 411
View Case »
Hillerich & Bradsby Co. v. Christian Bros., Inc., 943 F.Supp. 1136
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F.Supp.2d 96, 68 U.S.P.Q.2d 1225

Facts

The TTAB found that the trademarks 'may be disparaging of Native Americans to a substantial composite of this group of people,' and 'may bring Native Americans into contempt or disrepute.'

Issue

Whether the TTAB's finding that the Washington Redskins trademarks may disparage Native Americans was supported by substantial evidence, and whether the laches defense barred the cancellation action.

Whether the trademarks 'may disparage' Native Americans or bring them into contempt or disrepute.

Rule

The court reviews the TTAB's findings of fact under the substantial evidence test, allowing for new evidence to be presented. The ultimate question of whether a trademark may disparage is a factual determination. The burden of proof lies with the parties seeking cancellation to demonstrate disparagement by a preponderance of the evidence.

Analysis

The TTAB's finding that the professional football team's 'Redskins' marks 'may disparage' Native Americans, warranting registration cancellation, was not supported by substantial evidence; there was no evidence that substantial composite of Native Americans viewed marks as disparaging when used to identify professional football team during relevant time period.

Conclusion

The District Court reversed the TTAB's decision, holding that the findings of disparagement were not supported by substantial evidence and that the cancellation action was barred by laches.

The TTAB's decision must be reversed.

Who won?

You must be