Trademark Redskins not allowed?

For some time now there has been controversy over Washington DC’s football club the Redskins. The first trademarks of this club are from the 1960’s. According to the club the name is a reference to honor and courage. Native Americans, however, believe that the name is condescending, to say the least.

In the dictionary the word red skin is also described as racist and discriminatory. In 1993 the National Congress of American Indians decides that the name of the club is condescending, racist and hurtful to Native Americans. Although the final word has not been said on this case, the American trademark authorities already decided to cancel the trademark registration. The reason for this being that the trademarks are discriminatory. The club may still use the trademark, but may find it very difficult to act against merchandising products from third parties. This may turn into a financial disaster. The Washington Redskins have filed an appeal against the cancellation, which means that for the time being they may still invoke their trademark rights.

trademarks



Latest news
Rituals vs. The Body Shop: Battle of the Brands
The Bulldog rightly claims damages from Red Bull
Trademark Escobar parfum contrary to public order
Abcor team in World Trademark Review 1000
Louis Keijzer passes BBMM exam with flying colours
Our Clients
Follow Abcor
claimant
defendant
claimant
defendant

IP quiz Trademarks

Puma is one of the bigger sports and lifestyle brands in the world. The core-business is the design, development and sale of (sports) shoes, (sports) clothing and accessories. In 1960, Puma registered an international trademark for a device designed in 1958: the formstrip. Since then, Puma has registered approximately 90 formstrip trademarks with validity in the Benelux or the European Union. Puma claims that this is a serial mark. Monshoe is a wholesaler of women's shoes and related products. The company designs and develops Monshoe shoes which it largely markets itself. Monshoe sells its women's shoes under the brands Shoecolate and Pearlz. The shoe Shoecolate is offered in various colour combinations. Puma claims that Monshoe infringes its well-known formstrip trademark. Monshoe contradicts this and states that the average consumer will not perceive the device of Monshoe on the sneakers as a trademark. And if the public will recognize a trademark in the decoration, it will not make the connection to Puma. According to Monshoe, the formstrip logo is not a well-known trademark within the meaning of the BVIE and the UMVo. There is no likelihood of confusion because the sign does not or hardly evoke any association with Puma among the public. In light of the above, who is right? Does this constitute decorative use or linking to a well-known trademark?