The US Patent and Trademark Office has cancelled the trade mark
registration held by the Washington Redskins football team, on the
basis that the term "Redskins" is "disparaging to
Native Americans". US law prohibits the registration of
offensive or disparaging language as a trade mark.
This is a massive deal in the US – the Redskins have been
around since 1932 and are said to be worth $1.6 billion. The trade
mark has incalculable value. They will, of course, appeal this case
all the way to Olympus. And the Cleveland Indians will be hanging
on that outcome too.
In Australia, the law is less clear. The Trade Marks Act says a
trade mark can't be registered if it contains or consists of
"scandalous matter" or its use would be contrary to law.
There's no precedent for a ruling that a racially offensive
term is scandalous, but could it be said that its use may infringe
the Racial Discrimination Act in that it would be likely to offend,
insult or humiliate people of the relevant racial group?
It's not an abstract question – The Redskins trade
mark is registered in Australia, both by the football team and by
Nestlé for its famous Redskins lollies (which used to have a
Red Indian on the wrapper but quietly dropped him some years ago).
Other interesting examples include Dairy Farmers' Coon cheese,
Golliwog biscuits (still owned by Arnotts but renamed a while back
to Scalliwags), plus a pile of trade marks consisting of the term
"Abo" and the very oddly named infant formula product
This kind of issue gets people very heated – there was
uproar when Enid Blyton's Noddy was outed as a racist because
of his attitude to Golliwogs.
It's true that restricting free speech because of the risk
to people's sensibilities is a slippery slope, particularly as
language constantly changes its meaning. On the other hand, surely
it isn't that difficult to understand how Native Americans
might find the continued use of a term which identifies them by a
skin colour they never actually had to be towards the humiliating
end of uncomfortable. And is it that big a stretch for us to
accommodate that discomfort? Legally, there is a good prospect that
s18C of the Racial Discrimination Act could be called on by those
affected by the use of racially insensitive trade marks to have
We think the Redskins could find a new name. We also think Noddy
was innocently perpetuating an unfortunate racial stereotype which
society can live without. Meanwhile, if you're working up a new
trade mark yourselves, sorry but OZ Lebo is already taken.
We do not disclaim anything about this article. We're
quite proud of it really.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
IP is the legal property in the innovation in your business and it is that which drives your revenue and profit growth.
Some comments from our readers… “The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable” “I often find critical information not available elsewhere” “As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).