- Thread starter
- #1
redskinsfan
Well-Known Member
- 2,955
- 192
- 63
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2015
- Location
- Southern California
- Hoopla Cash
- $ 1,000.00
- Fav. Team #1
- Fav. Team #2
- Fav. Team #3
It's been a while since Pro-Football, Inc. (aka our beloved REDSKINS) filed its appeal of the adverse PTO ruling stripping its name and other regalia of federal trademark protection. While the case has been litigated like any other run-of-the-mill civil proceeding would, there have been a few twists and turns in it.
One of the most interesting of them is that the ACLU has intervened as an amicus -- on behalf of the Redskins. While the ACLU would support a Redskins name change, it concurs with several arguments the Redskins are making challenging the constitutionality of the applicable federal laws governing trademark protection. As an example, the ACLU backs the Redskins view that the Lanham Act, at least as applied here, contains constitutionally infirm viewpoint regulations. Because the Redskins have mounted these constitutional challenges, the Obama administration has also appeared in this matter to defend the Lanham Act in connection with the arguments raised by both the Redskins and ACLU.
A motion made by the Redskins and Blackhorse on these grounds is set for hearing on June 23, 2015. However these may be resolved on this day, they don't address the substantive issue of whether the Redskins name violates the Lanham Act. That will be resolved at trial, which is set for July 27, 2015 to August 4, 2015.
The judge presiding over this matter is Gerald Bruce Lee, a Clinton appointee. He, however, was installed on the recommendation of a Republican and Democrat Senators from Virginia.
One of the most interesting of them is that the ACLU has intervened as an amicus -- on behalf of the Redskins. While the ACLU would support a Redskins name change, it concurs with several arguments the Redskins are making challenging the constitutionality of the applicable federal laws governing trademark protection. As an example, the ACLU backs the Redskins view that the Lanham Act, at least as applied here, contains constitutionally infirm viewpoint regulations. Because the Redskins have mounted these constitutional challenges, the Obama administration has also appeared in this matter to defend the Lanham Act in connection with the arguments raised by both the Redskins and ACLU.
A motion made by the Redskins and Blackhorse on these grounds is set for hearing on June 23, 2015. However these may be resolved on this day, they don't address the substantive issue of whether the Redskins name violates the Lanham Act. That will be resolved at trial, which is set for July 27, 2015 to August 4, 2015.
The judge presiding over this matter is Gerald Bruce Lee, a Clinton appointee. He, however, was installed on the recommendation of a Republican and Democrat Senators from Virginia.
Once its a slow news day or someone wants votes in a local election there will all of a sudden be more public outcry about the name. Fuckin hypocrites in the media 
