Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
PRO-FOOTBALL, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Amanda BLACKHORSE; Marcus Briggs-Cloud; Phillip Gover; Jillian Pappan; Courtney Tsotigh, Defendants-Appellees, United States of America, Intervenor-Appellee, Constitutional Law Professors; Cato Institute; The Rutherford Institute; Don Bettelyoun; Fort McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribe; Boyd Gourneau; Native American Guardians Association; Peter MacDonald; American Civil Liberties Union; American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia; American Civil Liberties Union of the Nation's Capital; First Amendment Lawyers Association; Russ Versteeg, Amici Supporting Appellant, Native American Organizations; The Navajo Nation; Fred T. Korematsu Center for Law and Equality; National Native American Bar Association; National Asian Pacific American Bar Association; Native Hawaiian Bar Association; California Indian Law Association, Amici Supporting Appellee.
Pro-Football, Inc. (“PFI”), the owner of the professional football team the Washington Redskins, holds six trademarks for the team's name and logos which are federally registered. The Defendants-Appellees, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Phillip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh, a group of Native Americans, filed a petition seeking the cancellation of the registrations of those trademarks, asserting that the trademarks consist of “matter which may disparage ․ persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.” 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a) (2012). The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ordered cancellation of the registrations based on § 1052(a). On PFI's appeal, the district court affirmed that order, and PFI now appeals.
While this appeal was pending, the Supreme Court in Matal v. Tam, ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1744, 1751, 198 L.Ed.2d 366 (2017), determined that § 1052(a) violates the free speech clause of the First Amendment. In light of this determination, we vacate the district court's order and remand for further proceedings consistent with Tam. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid in the decisional process.
VACATED AND REMANDED
PER CURIAM:
Vacated and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Docket No: No. 15-1874
Decided: January 18, 2018
Court: United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)