## Facts

- Pro-Football, Inc. (PFI) owned six federal trademark registrations for “Redskins” marks used with professional football services, registered between 1967 and 1990.
- Native American petitioners sought cancellation of the registrations under the Lanham Act, alleging the marks “may disparage” Native Americans and bring them into contempt or disrepute.
- The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) ordered cancellation under Lanham Act § 2(a)’s disparagement clause.
- PFI filed a civil action seeking review of the TTAB decision and challenged § 2(a) as unconstitutional under the First and Fifth Amendments, including vagueness, due process, and takings theories.
- The case was decided on cross-motions for summary judgment by PFI, the petitioners, and the United States (as intervenor defending the statute and TTAB decision).

## Issues

1. Whether Lanham Act § 2(a)’s disparagement clause is unconstitutional under the First Amendment, including as an unconstitutional condition or viewpoint-based restriction.
2. Whether § 2(a)’s “may disparage” standard is unconstitutionally vague under the Fifth Amendment, facially or as applied.
3. Whether cancellation of trademark registrations under § 2(a) effects a taking or violates due process.
4. Whether substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding that the marks “may disparage” a substantial composite of Native Americans at the times of registration.
5. Whether laches barred the cancellation petitions due to the time elapsed after registration.

## Decision

- PFI’s motions for summary judgment were denied.
- The petitioners’ and the United States’ motions for summary judgment were granted.
- The court affirmed the TTAB’s order cancelling the six registrations and directed the USPTO to cancel them.
- The court held § 2(a) constitutional and rejected PFI’s First Amendment, vagueness, takings, and due process challenges.
- The court held the TTAB’s disparagement finding was supported by substantial evidence.
- The court held laches did not bar the petitions.

## Legal Principles

- Denial or cancellation of federal trademark registration under § 2(a) does not prohibit use of the mark in commerce; it withholds registration-related statutory benefits.
- Trademark rights arise primarily from use; cancellation of a registration does not extinguish common-law rights or other available infringement theories.
- A vagueness challenge fails where statutory text and established administrative standards provide fair notice and constrain arbitrary enforcement; disparagement turns on the mark’s likely meaning and whether a substantial composite of the referenced group would view it as disparaging at the registration time.
- Procedural due process is satisfied where the registrant receives notice and an opportunity to be heard before the TTAB, with judicial review available.
- Laches may be limited where Congress has expressed a strong public policy in the statutory scheme, and delay is assessed in light of petitioners’ ability to sue (including minority status) and claimed prejudice.

## Conclusion

The court upheld § 2(a)’s disparagement clause against constitutional attacks and affirmed cancellation of PFI’s “Redskins” registrations, concluding that substantial evidence supported the TTAB’s finding of disparagement at the registration dates and that laches did not bar the petitions.


Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse, 112 F. Supp. 3d 439 (E.D. Va. 2015)