Washington Redskins: Update On The Trademark Case That Could Impact Team’s Name
By Desmond Lee
What Can We Expect After Oral Argument?
Oral argument can, at times, provide onlookers a guide as to how the Court may rule on a case. But oral argument, in other instances, proves to be entirely misleading where the Court’s ultimate ruling turns on grounds never mentioned during those proceedings. It’s uncertain what relevance, if any, the issues raised during the band’s oral argument will have in its case.
Indeed, other issues that were raised peripherally in the oral argument may loom largely in deciding the band’s First Amendment arguments. One such issue was Justice Ginsburg’s question whether intent to disparage should matter. If it does, this would impact an argument in the Redskins case that its name was never meant to offend anyone.
Justice Ginsburg also questioned whether the Act’s use of the word “disparaging” was too vague for anyone to clearly understand. In a related point, she noted the PTO’s failure to consistently apply what it deemed to be “disparaging” names. As an example, Justice Ginsburg cited to instances where the PTO approved some trademarks that contained one racial slur but rejected others with the very same epithet. While this line of questioning may signal Justice Ginsburg’s dissatisfaction with the PTO’s position, it’s unclear how it will sway her and the rest of the Court when it finally rules in the band’s case.
A decision will be due by early July. The transcript and audio for the oral argument are publicly available, via the Supreme Court’s official website.