Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary Essay

Exclusively available on Available only on IvyPanda® Made by Human No AI

10-2a Trademarks, Servicemarks, and Trade Dress Summary

Company’s ownerships on various elements that identifies its products are protected from unfair competition by registration under the Lanham Act. Trademarks servicemarks and trade dress are the main three product-related aspects protected by the law. Such registration prevents unfair competition and protects consumers from receiving misleading information about the product. It is impossible to register a trademark, which is similar to other registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

There are four main categories of marks, including “fanciful or arbitrary,” “suggestive,” “descriptive,” and “generic”. Fanciful marks are invented words with no existing meaning, hence they are less complicated to register and harder to contest. The suggestive mark represents a connection to the product or service without particularly naming or describing them. Marks, which are descriptive of the goods or services, need to be distinctive and have a “secondary meaning” to be registered. Generic words are not allowed to be used as trademarks as it a universal right to use common names for products or services. In some cases even fanciful marks may become generic if they are not registered in time.

Pro-Football Inc. v. Blackhorse Case Brief

Pro-Football Inc. v. Amanda Blackhorse et al

United States, Court of Appeals, 1:14-cv-01043-GBL-IDD.

Facts

The National Football League (NFL) used ‘Redskins’ as their mark chosen by the team’s owner George Preston Marshall. Five Native Americas, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Phillip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh pressed charges against Pro-Football, Inc for using an offensive trademark. Blackhorse et al demanded cancellation of the trademark registration as it included term ‘Redskins’. In June 2014, the trademark registration was cancelled by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board as it violated the Lanham Act. The case was also brought in federal court as the defendants claimed that the Redskin Mark violated Lanham Act. The trademark was claimed to disparage Native Americans at the time of registration and latches shall not bar the claim.

Issue

Does the disparagement clause of the Lahnam Act violate the First and Fifth Amendments? Does the prolonged time gap between registration and cancelation of the trademark violate due process?

Holding

The court denied PFI’s summary judgment motions.

Reasoning

The court determined that the Lanham Act does not violate the First Amendment. It was also stated that the federal trademark involves government speech instead of commercial and the government speech is exempt from the First Amendment. The court also determined that the Lanham Act gives sufficient criteria for actions qualified as disparaging. The court considered the statements made by individuals who belong to the disparaged group. According to statements of Native Americans the Redskins Marks contained disparaging elements.

Opinion

Any issues related to freedom of speech may be significantly controversial. As the Lanham Act prohibits registration of marks that consist of immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter, it may be interpreted subjectively. Such aspects as morality are not objectively determined, therefore the court has the discretion to find if the trademark is disparaging. There are some controversial opinions on the exemption of governmental speech from the First Amendment (Novotny). However, the decision in the particular case may be considered to be reasonable as businesses should avoid delicate or provocative subjects when creating their trademarks.

Work Cited

Novotny, Michael James. “Is Pro-Football v. Blackhorse a Nibble Off the Ear or a Knock-Out Punch to Trademark Law?” SSRN Electronic Journal, 2016, Web.

More related papers Related Essay Examples
Cite This paper
You're welcome to use this sample in your assignment. Be sure to cite it correctly

Reference

IvyPanda. (2022, October 2). Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pro-football-inc-cases-summary/

Work Cited

"Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary." IvyPanda, 2 Oct. 2022, ivypanda.com/essays/pro-football-inc-cases-summary/.

References

IvyPanda. (2022) 'Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary'. 2 October.

References

IvyPanda. 2022. "Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary." October 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pro-football-inc-cases-summary/.

1. IvyPanda. "Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary." October 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pro-football-inc-cases-summary/.


Bibliography


IvyPanda. "Pro-Football Inc.: Cases Summary." October 2, 2022. https://ivypanda.com/essays/pro-football-inc-cases-summary/.

If, for any reason, you believe that this content should not be published on our website, please request its removal.
Updated:
This academic paper example has been carefully picked, checked and refined by our editorial team.
No AI was involved: only quilified experts contributed.
You are free to use it for the following purposes:
  • To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
  • As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
  • As a template for you assignment
1 / 1