## Facts

- Seven Native American petitioners sought cancellation of six federal trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc. for marks containing “Redskins” (or derivatives) used for professional football entertainment services and related goods.
- The petition was filed in 1992 under Lanham Act § 14(3), alleging the registrations violated Lanham Act § 2(a)’s prohibition on marks that “may disparage” persons or bring them into “contempt, or disrepute.”
- The TTAB conducted an evidentiary proceeding addressing the meaning of the term “Redskins,” the relevant viewpoint group, and whether the record showed disparagement at the times of the respective registrations (spanning 1967–1990).
- Evidence included dictionary usage labels describing “redskin(s)” as offensive/disparaging; testimony from Native American witnesses; resolutions and statements by Native American tribes and organizations; and historical and expert evidence regarding the term’s usage and connotations.
- Pro-Football asserted equitable defenses, including laches, in response to the cancellation petition.

## Issues

1. Whether the registered “Redskins” marks, at the times of their registrations, consisted of matter that “may disparage” Native Americans or bring them into “contempt, or disrepute” under Lanham Act § 2(a).
2. Whether the relevant inquiry required proof that a “substantial composite” of Native Americans (rather than the general public) perceived the term as disparaging at the times of registration, and whether the record satisfied that standard.
3. Whether equitable defenses, including laches, barred cancellation in this proceeding.

## Decision

- The TTAB granted the petition to cancel and ordered cancellation of all six registrations.
- The TTAB found each challenged registration consisted of matter that may disparage Native Americans and bring them into contempt or disrepute within the meaning of Lanham Act § 2(a).
- The TTAB applied a time-of-registration framework and assessed disparagement from the standpoint of Native Americans as the referenced group.
- The TTAB rejected Pro-Football’s equitable defenses as not barring cancellation on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Lanham Act § 2(a) bars registration of a mark that “may disparage” persons or bring them into “contempt, or disrepute.”
- Disparagement is evaluated by (1) determining the likely meaning of the mark in context and (2) asking whether that meaning may be disparaging to a “substantial composite” of the referenced group.
- The relevant perception is that of the referenced group, not the general public; a majority showing is not required.
- Disparagement is assessed at the time of registration for each mark at issue.
- In TTAB cancellation proceedings, equitable defenses (including laches) may be considered, but do not automatically bar cancellation and require an adequate showing under equitable standards.

## Conclusion

The TTAB canceled six registrations containing “Redskins” after finding that, at their respective registration dates, the marks’ likely meaning could be disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans and could bring them into contempt or disrepute under Lanham Act § 2(a), and that equitable defenses did not preclude cancellation.


Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1705 (T.T.A.B. 1999)