While the Washington Redskins fight to stay relevant on the field, the franchise is fighting a battle to keep the trademark to their name off of it.
After losing the Washington Redskins trademark via a decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on the grounds that it may be offensive to Native Americans, lawyers for the organization filed paperwork on Monday arguing that the decision should be overturned because it "infringers on free-speech rights and unfairly singles the team out," according to a report from Fox Sports.
"The trademark board's decision unfairly singles out the Redskins "for disfavored treatment based solely on the content of its protected speech, interfering with the ongoing public discourse over the Redskins' name by choosing sides and cutting off the debate. This the U.S. Constitution does not tolerate," the lawyers write in their brief."
It is the team's belief that the government has no business deciding such matters. Lawyers also cited the Atlanta Braves, whose name was deemed "content-neutral," as an example of the hypocritical nature of the decision.
The entire issue stems from a disagreement over whether or not the term Redskins is disparaging to Native Americans. The team and owner Dan Snyder do not, of course, believe that it carries negative connotations. Native Americans like Navajo activist Amanda Blackhorse, Phillip Glover, Marcus Briggs-Cloud, Jillian Pappan and Courtney Tsotigh - who the NFL sued in the wake of their successful challenge of the Redskins name as offensive - beg to differ.
Still, the team filed the paperwork Monday, citing First Amendment violations.
"The team says free-speech protections should be understood more broadly. The team says the First Amendment can be violated by government restrictions that burden speech even if they don't ban it outright. The team argues that canceling a trademark represents such a burden, especially for a football club that has used the name since 1933."
This isn't the first time the franchise has attempted to retain their trademark rights via appeal - in 2003 a federal court overruled a similar claim citing insufficient evidence.
