Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Petition for Certiorari filed in Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc.

Susan S. Harjo et al. have filed a Petition for Writ of Certiorari in the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking review of the decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 90 USPQ2d 1593 (D.C. Cir. 2009). [copy of Petition here (431 pages)].

Susan S. Harjo

In its May 15, 2009, the Court of Appeals focused on a single issue, affirming the ruling of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia that laches barred the attempt of Native American Mateo Romero to cancel six registrations for the mark REDSKINS (or variations thereof) owned by the Washington Redskins for football entertainment services. [A summary of the various proceeding may be found here at the TTABlog].

Text Copyright John L. Welch 2009.


At 11:58 AM, OpenID randazza said...

I don't agree with 2(a)'s "disparaging marks" exclusions at all, and therefore I don't support Harjo's case.

On the other hand, I do think that the Redskins could show a little class and voluntarily change their name. Lets face it, if there was a team called the "Alabama Jigaboos," would anyone think that is okay? I hate political correctness, but I can see the NA's point.

But... back to the case. While I don't support the case in chief, punting on laches was terribly intellectually dishonest. On that narrow issue alone, reversal is appropriate. And, under the 2(a) standard, as it is today, Harjo should win.

At 8:22 PM, Blogger Tom Casagrande said...

I wish laches had a different name. I can never get courts to apply it. My theory is that it has such an old-fashioned 18th-century moniker that courts think it's one of those archaic, silly "chancellor's boot" defenses that modern judges wink and ignore nowadays. Can we all agree to change the name to "equitable limitations period" or something like that?

At 2:11 PM, Anonymous CM said...

At the Monthly meeting of the Comanche Nation Business, it voted on unanimously by the CBC to support Harjo et al v. Pro Football, Inc..

David Yeagley was in the audience,he of course said nothing he would have been outnumbered. He is not as brave a Savage Warrior in person as hi is behind his computor on He didn't have his Washington Redskin Jacket on that Day!


Post a Comment

<< Home