Hot-button legal issue. Photograph via Shutterstock.
The federal body that oversees trademarks ruled on Monday that the term “Redskins” is insulting, insofar as it pertains to fatty snack foods. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejected an application for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” writing in a letter that the name contains a “derogatory slang term” for Native Americans.
“Registration is refused because the applied-for mark Redskins Hog Rinds consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” the December 29 letter reads.
But pork rinds are not the only case the trademark board has before it concerning the questionable word. It is currently deliberating a case brought by a group of Native American activists who are seeking to strip the Washington NFL franchise of its trademark for the same reason the snack food was denied its desired name. Trademark judges heard oral arguments last March, and the attorney representing the plaintiffs says the pork rind decision bodes well for the case against the football team.
“We’ve very encouraged by this decision by the trademark office, and we look forward to getting a ruling in our case,” Jesse Witten, a partner at Drinker Biddle, told the Washington Post.
The trademark board can’t force the team to change its name, but a ruling for the plaintiffs would mean the team would no longer be protected against businesses and individuals from selling unlicensed merchandise that features its name. The trademark application for the pork rinds was filed on behalf of a Capitol Heights man, and the law firm representing him told the Post that in that context, “Redskins” could be ambiguous because there are food products that contain the word in reference to nuts or potatoes.
Benjamin Freed joined Washingtonian in August 2013 and covers politics, business, and media. He was previously the editor of DCist and has also written for Washington City Paper, the New York Times, the New Republic, Slate, and BuzzFeed. He lives in Adams Morgan.
Federal Trademark Board Says “Redskins” Is a Derogatory Word, for Pork Rinds
The board is also reviewing the word as it pertains to the NFL team of the same name.
The federal body that oversees trademarks ruled on Monday that the term “Redskins” is insulting, insofar as it pertains to fatty snack foods. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board rejected an application for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” writing in a letter that the name contains a “derogatory slang term” for Native Americans.
“Registration is refused because the applied-for mark Redskins Hog Rinds consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols,” the December 29 letter reads.
But pork rinds are not the only case the trademark board has before it concerning the questionable word. It is currently deliberating a case brought by a group of Native American activists who are seeking to strip the Washington NFL franchise of its trademark for the same reason the snack food was denied its desired name. Trademark judges heard oral arguments last March, and the attorney representing the plaintiffs says the pork rind decision bodes well for the case against the football team.
“We’ve very encouraged by this decision by the trademark office, and we look forward to getting a ruling in our case,” Jesse Witten, a partner at Drinker Biddle, told the Washington Post.
The trademark board can’t force the team to change its name, but a ruling for the plaintiffs would mean the team would no longer be protected against businesses and individuals from selling unlicensed merchandise that features its name. The trademark application for the pork rinds was filed on behalf of a Capitol Heights man, and the law firm representing him told the Post that in that context, “Redskins” could be ambiguous because there are food products that contain the word in reference to nuts or potatoes.
Benjamin Freed joined Washingtonian in August 2013 and covers politics, business, and media. He was previously the editor of DCist and has also written for Washington City Paper, the New York Times, the New Republic, Slate, and BuzzFeed. He lives in Adams Morgan.
Most Popular in News & Politics
Washington DC’s 500 Most Influential People of 2025
Ed Martin’s Nomination Is in Trouble, Trump Wants to Rename Veterans Day, and Political Drama Continues in Virginia
“Absolute Despair”: An NIH Worker on Job and Budget Cuts, RFK Jr., and Trump’s First 100 Days
Stumpy Stans Can Now Preorder a Bobblehead of the Beloved Tree
Slugging Makes a Comeback for DC Area Commuters
Washingtonian Magazine
May Issue: 52 Perfect Saturdays
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
DC Might Be Getting a Watergate Museum
DC-Area Universities Are Offering Trump Classes This Fall
Viral DC-Area Food Truck Flavor Hive Has It in the Bag
Slugging Makes a Comeback for DC Area Commuters
More from News & Politics
9 Embassies to Check Out During the EU Open Houses This Weekend
Trump Yanks Ed Martin’s Nomination
“Les Miz” Castmembers Plan Boycott of Trump Appearance, Ed Martin Wants to Jail a Guy for Trespassing on Federal Property, and We Found Some Swell Turkish Food
DC Might Be Getting a Watergate Museum
The Ultimate Guide on How to Date in DC
Washington DC’s 500 Most Influential People of 2025
Non-Metaphorical Earthquake Rattles Region, Voice of America Will Carry OAN Programming, and There’s an Oral History of Fugazi’s Basketball Hoop Show
DC-Area Universities Are Offering Trump Classes This Fall