The Slants say their goal was not to offend anyone, but to transform a derisive term about the shape of Asian eyes into a statement of ethnic and cultural pride. The band won a major victory last year when a divided federal appeals court in the District of Columbia ruled the law prohibiting offensive trademarks violates free-speech rights. The Obama administration has asked the Supreme Court to overturn that ruling.
"The First Amendment forbids government regulators to deny registration because they find the speech likely to offend others," Judge Kimberly Moore said for the majority.
In The Slants case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in December that the First Amendment protects "even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities."
__
The administration argues that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection. The law "simply reflects Congress' judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of racial slurs and other disparaging terms by granting the benefits of registration," the government said.
The American Civil Liberties Union has sided with the Redskins' free-speech claims,Dallas Cowboys Jersey White, even as the group has publicly called on the team to change the name because it is offensive.
The Supreme Court could decide as early as this month whether to hear the dispute involving the Portland, Oregon-area band. And if the football team has its way, the justices could hear both cases in its new term.
The Redskins claim their case is "a better vehicle" than Tam's for the Supreme Court to consider the constitutionality of the trademark law. The team says the effect of canceling a trademark is more harmful because it has been relying on the law's financial protections for nearly 50 years. Without trademark protection, the team could lose millions if it can't block the sale of counterfeit merchandise.
A federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia, has not yet considered the team's appeal, but the Redskins are urging the Supreme Court not to wait. If the high court agrees to hear the Slants case, the team wants the justices to hear both disputes at the same time. Such requests to leapfrog lower courts are rarely granted.
Anyone who has visited The Slants' website will find the band members are certainly no fans of the team. One section has a lengthy list of reasons why the cases are different. No. 1 is "unlike REDSKINS, THE SLANTS is not an inherent racial slur."
Tam does not mention those distinctions in his brief to the court, and he declined to be interviewed.
The website says the word Redskin "has a long history of oppression" and "the football team treats the people as mascots." By contrast,Air Max Outlet Italia, The Slants "breaks stereotypes about Asian-Americans,Wholesale NFL Jerseys, especially in the entertainment industry."
WASHINGTON (AP) — Simon Tam has openly criticized the Washington Redskins team name as a racist slur that demeans Native Americans.
The Redskins,Zapatillas Nike Espa?a, too, say their team name is meant to honor American Indians. But the team has faced years of legal challenges, and a testy public relations fight, from members of the very group they claim to salute. The Redskins case involves the trademark office's move last year to cancel the team trademark that was first registered in 1967. A federal judge has agreed with that decision.
At issue is a constitutional challenge to a law barring the U.S,Cheap Adidas Superstar China. Patent and Trademark Office from registering trademarks that disparage minority groups. The office denied a trademark to the Slants in 2011 after finding the name disparaged people of Asian descent.
But Tam and his Asian-American rock band, The Slants, find themselves on the same side as the NFL franchise in a First Amendment legal battle over trademark protection for names that some consider offensive.
Jeremy Sheff, a professor at St. John's University School of Law who specializes in intellectual property, said the Supreme Court could be interested in the cases because it has been "pretty aggressive" in protecting First Amendment speech — even remarks considered highly offensive.
"The government doesn't get to withhold a benefit because it disagrees with the content of someone's speech," said ACLU national legal director Steve Shapiro.
The Redski