Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark.

A good example of this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_... ("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term. McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot' in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations.")

In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term, a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans. Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation proceedings for the trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro.... The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.




> The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.


Thanks. I vaguely remembered the case from trademarks class, but that was a few years ago. :)


Important to note, the ruling is based on whether or not the trademark was considered disparaging at the time of registration... not currently.


Yes, and the relevant time frame is between 1967 and 1990. There's a good article with details: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-patent-office-cancels-reds....

> "The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990.


NWA will then surely lose (any of) its trademark rights?


They don't appear to have any registered trademarks.

There have been several attempts to register marks with "nigger", "nigga", "niggaz", and similar, but they all seem to have been abandoned [1]. Most of these were for things related to music (e.g., music production companies) or for clothing.

[1] One exception. There is an application for "Figgas over Niggas" that is still on track.


Interestingly, the presumption appears to be positive in the statue absent the express carve out--which is essentially for "immorality" or "provocation".

U.S. Code › Title 15 › Chapter 22 › Subchapter I › § 1052 15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute;...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052*




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: