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
5 Things to Know About This Weekend’s Inaugural Balls
This Time, Metro Will Offer a Full-Blown Trump Inauguration SmarTrip Card
DC Demonstrations and Protests Planned Around Trump’s Second Inauguration
Inauguration Road Closures: The Very Long List of DC Streets to Avoid This Weekend
This DC Inauguration Day Event Encourages People to “Take Edibles and Come”
Washingtonian Magazine
January Issue: He's Back
View IssueSubscribe
Follow Us on Social
Follow Us on Social
Related
A Biography of Perle Mesta Sheds Light on a Famed DC Figure
Inside the Library of Congress’s Artificial-Aging Lab
Guest List: 5 People We’d Love to Hang Out With This January
Paula Whyman’s New Book Is About an Ecology Project From Hell
More from News & Politics
Downtown Belongs to MAGA Today
Donald Trump’s Inauguration Will Be Indoors
Workers at Some of DC’s Best-Known Restaurants Move to Unionize
Elon Musk and Hulk Hogan Will Speak at Trump Rally, DC Could Get a Bottle Deposit Program, and the US Will Send Ambassadors to Hollywood
Playbook’s New Author Is “Used to Chaos and Turmoil and Change”
Jason Aldean Is Among Inauguration Musical Guests, There’s House Intrigue Over Ukraine, and Lots of People Are Buying Mansions
What Trump’s Return Means for DC
What Snow Could Mean for Inauguration Day