The American Civil Liberties Union managed to hit both the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder in its conclusion about the Redskins trademark controversy.
The ACLU backed up Snyder last week in a friend-of-the-court brief by deciding that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acted against the U.S. Constitution when it ruled to cancel six Redskins trademarks last June due to the “disparaging” nature of the National Football League team’s name. The Redskins have appealed the Trademark Office’s ruling.
However, in a blog post announcing the group’s conclusion, ACLU staff attorney Esha Bhandari labeled Snyder an “a–hole” and called the football team’s moniker “unfortunate” though ultimately unchangeable by the government.
From the ACLU blog post, titled, “You’re not wrong, you’re just an a–hole”:
Nevertheless, the government has indeed weighed in. Last June, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office cancelled the football team’s federally registered trademark, which it deemed disparaging to Native Americans. We don’t disagree with that judgment, but the government should not be able to decide what types of speech are forbidden — even when the speech in question reflects viewpoints we all agree are repellent.
The civil liberties group particularly came down on the trademark law that allows the government to deny trademarks that are “immoral,” “scandalous” or “disparaging,” which Bhandari claimed has resulted in “inconsistent policing of speech.” The group suggested this provision be struck down.
Moreover, the ACLU also spotlighted the ultimate ineffectiveness of the government’s attempt to stifle the football team’s trademark.
“Cancelling a trademark doesn’t prevent the team from using it,” read the blog post. “It does, however, make it easier for other people to disseminate it. So the Trademark Office decision in this case might result in even more use of a distasteful term — not less.”
H/T The Hill
