Senator to Introduce Bill That Ends NFL Tax-Exempt Status over Redskins Name

Senator Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.) announced Tuesday plans to introduce legislation that would eliminate the NFL’s tax-exempt status due to its refusal to force the Washington Redskins to change the team’s name.

Cantwell, the former chair of the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, spoke at a press conference Tuesday called by a coalition of Native American groups hosted by the Change the Mascot campaign one year after its launch.

“The NFL needs to join the rest of Americans in the 21st century,” Cantwell said at a press conference Tuesday. “We can no longer tolerate this attitude towards Native Americans. This is not about team tradition; it is about right and wrong.”

Change the Mascot, the brainchild of the Oneida Indian Nation, said it would continue pressuring the 31 other NFL teams to force Redskins owner Dan Snyder to consider changing the team’s name and mascot. The group also penned an open letter sent to every NFL team owner Tuesday asserting that the league’s bylaws enable them to punish any team owner or part-owner who is “guilty of conduct detrimental to the welfare of the League or professional football.”

“Clearly, Washington team owner Dan Snyder’s continued promotion of this racial slur represents such conduct,” the letter reads.

Snyder has repeatedly refused to change the team’s name and mascot, citing public polls that show overwhelming support for the team’s name.

“I respect the opinions of those who disagree,” Snyder wrote in an open letter to fans last October. “I want them to know that I do hear them, and I will continue to listen and learn. But we cannot ignore our 81 year history, or the strong feelings of most of our fans as well as Native Americans throughout the country.”

--

The United States Patent and Trademark Office revoked the Washington Redskins trademark registration in June, citing claims that the team’s name and logo are “disparaging to Native Americans.“

The Blackhorse v. Pro Football, Inc . decision, a landmark case that appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board June 18, was brought forth back in 2006 by Native American groups citing federal trademark law does not allow trademarks that disparage an individual or group.

“It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans,” said Amanda Blackhorse, the case’s lead plaintiff and one of five Native Americans effectively being sued by the Redskins. “I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed.”

The ruling did not necessitate the Redskins change their name, though it could affect whether the team can profit from merchandising the Redskins brand. The decision could potentially result in sales of more Redskins merchandise, not less, since third parties will now be able to freely market the team’s name and logo.

Native Americans won a similar suit in 1999, though the Redskins and the NFL appealed the decision to the U.S. District Court in 2009, after which the case was thrown out on an appeal because the courts decided the plaintiffs were too old.

--

On Aug. 14, the team formally appealed the U.S. Trademark office’s June decision to cancel several of the team’s trademark registrations.

“We believe that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ignored both federal case law and the weight of the evidence, and we look forward to having a federal court review this obviously flawed decision,” said Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Washington Redskins, in a statement.

“Specifically, by canceling valuable, decades-old registrations, the Board improperly penalized the Washington Redskins based on the content of the team’s speech in violation of the First Amendment,” the statement said. “The complaint also alleges that the team has been unfairly deprived of its valuable and long-held intellectual property rights in violation of the Fifth Amendment.”

The team said it would ask the court to consider the ruling’s effect on the team’s right to free speech and whether the team would be deprived of “valuable and long-held intellectual property rights.”

‘’This effort is doomed to fail,’’ Blackhorse said. ‘’But if they want to prolong this litigation which has already gone on for 22 years, I guess they have that prerogative.’’