text: Showing http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/news.aspx?id=8052 captured on Nov 14, 2008
  Section 2 of the federal law provides: "No trademark … shall be refused registration … on account of its nature unless it — consists of … scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute."
  The activists contended that the word "redskins" — which appears in the trademark of each of the registrations — "was and is a pejorative, disreputable, disparaging and racist designation for a Native American person."
  The team owners argued that the team name "reflects the positive attributes of Native Americans … [including] dedication, courage and pride." Attorneys for the team contended that the word "redskins" was a "neutral" term that did not denigrate Native Americans. They argued that the term was only used to refer to the football team, not Native Americans.
  The board determined that the word "redskin(s) as it appears in respondent's marks in those registrations … may disparage Native Americans, as perceived by a substantial composite of Native Americans."
  Attorneys for the team say that a reviewing federal court, unlike the trademark board, will review their First Amendment claims. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board sidestepped those constitutional arguments, finding that the board has "no authority … to declare provisions of the Trademark Act unconstitutional."
  Robert Raskopf, attorney for the Washington Redskins, says that the team will definitely appeal to either a federal district court or the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. "This law is void for vagueness and unfairly restricts commercial speech," he said.
  However, Stephen R. Baird, attorney for the activists, said "this ruling does not implicate the First Amendment." He said: "As the team is quick to point out, the board's decision does not require the team to change its name. In fact, the team asserts that it won't do so. Clearly, the team's own analysis of the decision destroys its claimed First Amendment defense.
  The plaintiffs disagreed about the impact of the ruling. "This is a stunning victory for all Native Peoples," said lead plaintiff Suzan Shown Harjo in a news release. "We are witnessing a mighty thing — society changing and coming to grips with one of the last vestiges of overt, public racism."
  "By not accepting what the law clearly states, they (the team owners) are now going to attack the trademark law itself," Harjo said. " The team owners are having a hard time giving up their toys of racism. People need to treat Native Americans as human beings, not animals."
  Federal judge sides with Redskins in trademark dispute
  Court finds American Indian activists didn't provide enough evidence that NFL team's name is disparaging. 10.02.03