Washington Redskins Legal Position Bolstered

As many readers have noticed, this blog has taken several opportunities to provide commentary on the continuing sage of the registered trademarks of the Washington Redskins professional football organization.  Just last month, this blog noted a similar alleged-disparagement case ("THE SLANTS") winding its way through the appeals process with a pending writ of certiorari filed with SCOTUS.  Today, the Washington Post published a new poll it conducted revealing that a significant majority of self-identifying Native Americans do not find the use of "Washington Redskins" or "Redskins" disparaging to the group.  Although this is an internally-commissioned poll by WaPo, the significance of the results could signal the final tolls of the bell for this decades-long trademark challenge. Recall, in 1992, Susan Harjo filed a petition with the USPTO to cancel six registered trademarks owned by the Washington Redskins football organization.  After multiple appeals within and without the administrative agency, the original challenge was nixed based on the legal theory that laches (waiting too long) prohibited the challengers from continuing with the cancellation proceeding in 2005, and mercifully buried by SCOTUS denying to hear the appeal in 2009.  Yet, as the Harjo petition was pending before SCOTUS, a new round of challenges to the same six registrations (on behalf of Amanda Blackhorse and five other individuals).  The Blackhorse challenge will reach its first-decade if it lasts until August 2016.

What threatens the viability of the Blackhorse challenge is the newly published WaPo poll, which reveals that of the 504 respondents self-identifying as Native Americans, 90% are not bothered by the use of "Redskins" by the Washington football organization, 1% offered no opinion, while the remaining 9% find the usage "offensive".  Recall the standard for appropriately holding that a term is "disparaging" is that it is deemed disparaging of a "substantial composite" of the identified group.  While there are no bright-line formulas for determining what is or is not a "substantial composite", a total of 9% finding the term(s) and/or uses "offensive" hardly seems to rise to the level of "substantial composite".

Something that gets a bit lost in the noise of these challenges is that this is the same problem that Harjo had.  Neither Harjo (nor apparently Blackhorse) can marshal the evidence that demonstrates a "substantial composite" of the group find the term offensive.  As noted in an ESPN article, it seems the average person finds the terms more offensive than members of the targeted-group - which is probably a bigger comment on the psychological/sociological issues within our progressively PC society.  Yet, even that evidence has historically favored the Washington organization, as the vast majority of people associate "Washington Redskins" and "Redskins" as identifying the NFL team, with hardly any data indicating such uses are of actual people/persons.

Between the publication of the WaPo poll, the trend in "THE SLANTS" case, as well as general first amendment and trademark examination principles, it appears the "Redskins" matter may reach a finality in favor of the club and its registrations.  Although I never underestimate the federal judiciary to surprise (esp. the intellectual property challenged members of SCOTUS).

Celebrity Inventors & Inventions

I came across a news article discussing the recently issued design patent for an improved beverage and food cooler to Mike Golic (former NFL football player and current co-host of ESPN radio's Mike and Mike show), son Jake, and three other co-inventors. This got me to thinking about celebrity inventors and inventions (a distinction that will become more clear shortly), as well as the difference between utility (for mechanical arrangement and/or function) and design (aesthetic / ornamental design) patents. If it is not obvious, a celebrity inventor is someone that is already a celebrity and later develops an invention that is exploited in some way.  Although Thomas Jefferson was initially philosophically opposed to patents (and the limited monopoly provided), through his ministerial role as chief patent examiner as Secretary of State in the early years of the US republic, Jefferson came to appreciate the economic benefits derived from a patent system.  And despite is prolific mechanical acumen, Jefferson did not attempt to patent the many inventions he developed after the US patent system was implemented in 1791 (and, of course, many of his inventions pre-dated the system), thus falling outside a reasonable definition of celebrity inventor.

Before his election as the 16th President of the United States (but as a member of Congress), Abraham Lincoln received a patent for buoying water vessel over shoals.  Given the time (and times) of Lincoln's invention and congressional experience, any celebrity that Lincoln enjoyed at that point was limited.

Likewise, although Thomas Edison is extremely famous, his fame is tied to his inventions and his patents, and thus not quite within the celebrity inventor umbrella.

Shortly after she launched her American-film acting debut, in an effort to contribute to the allied war-effort during World War II, actress Hedy Lamarr teamed with George Antheil to develop a frequency-hopping signal system to prevent naval opposition from jamming naval torpedo signals that would cause the torpedo to veer off course and miss its target.  Lamarr (under her married name Markey) and Antheil were awarded U.S. Patent No. 2,292,387 in 1942.  However, a skeptical U.S. Navy did not adopt the technology.  Instead, the technology sat unused until the 1960s, when it was finally adopted.  Although Lemarr skirts the edge, since her technology was not adopted until after the patent term expired, this too falls short.

The several (and best) examples of celebrity inventors generally come from the performing arts, where some necessity was the inspiration for an invention for integrated use in the performer's milieu.  As such, Harry Houdini is probably the first celebrity inventor, creating a diving suit awarded a patent in 1921, some thirty-years into his illusionist career.  Walt Disney held two patents for animation and motion picture techniques, with the animation patent forming part of the launching pad for Disney Studios.

Although Houdini and Disney had utility patents, design patents are well represented by George Lucas and his LucasFilm empire.  Being the pioneer in film-to-toy merchandising, Lucas (and with the artistic input of legendary artist Ralph McQuarry) holds at least 11 issued design patents for various conceptions of characters from the Star Wars universe, such as the uber-popular Boba Fett, Yoda, and the AT-AT imperial transport.

The world of music provides some of the more recognizable implementations of invention-by-inventor.  Eddie Van Halen created a removable try that attaches to the underside of a guitar for assisting the guitarist in accessing the guitar like a piano (now expired).  EVH also invented and owns the patents for a single-string de-tuning system (branded as the D-Tuna) and the design for a guitar headstock (with a scallop cut removed).  EVH also has purchased other patents (here and here).

Musical genius Prince held a design patent for a portable keyboard (expired in 2008).  Prince's chief musical rival in the 80s, Michael Jackson, invented a shoe-device that created the illusion of anti-gravity, most effectively used in his video for the hit-song "Smooth Criminal".

The previous examples stand in contrast to "celebrity inventions" that are really no more than celebrity-endorsed products invented by other non-celebrities.  The "George Foreman Grill" is one of the best examples of this, since the grill was actually invented by Michael Boehm.  With the success of the Foreman Grill, the copycats followed, with the Evander Holyfield Real Deal Grill, the Carl Lewis Health Grill, and the Hulk Hogan Blender.  However, these are good examples of the licensing, use, and (somewhat) successful utilization of the valuable name, image, and likeness (aka, NIL) of a well-known celebrity.

Whether the Golics can land a licensing deal or sell to a cooler manufacturer, and achieve the desired monetary success with the ornamental design of this new cooler remains to be seen.  Mike Golic's celebrity certainly will be a large selling point in getting the product recognized, often one of the hardest parts of achieving commercial success.

While you may not (yet) be famous, if you have an invention that you believe functions or appears differently from what is out there, contact York Law LLC to get more information on what you can do to start down the path of success.  (E: oly3@olenyork.com).

Swift v. The World (It Only Seems That Way)

So, last week, Taylor Swift was using her muscle to first call-out and then praise global-behemoth Apple Inc. once the Cupertino, CA company fell into line with her way of thinking (on royalty payments during the trial-period of Apple's new streaming service).  This week, Swift is on the outs with photographers (and photographers on the outs with her - I sense a song coming from this episode). Apparently, Swift and at least one photographer disagree on whether the photographer is wholly restricted or selectively restricted in using a photo more than once (taken during the "1989 World Tour").  The photographer claims that each photo can be used only once and that the copyright ownership is retained by Firefly Entertainment (Swift's label) presumptively under a "work made for hire" provision in the contract.  Conversely, Swift claims that while each photo may be used only once, additional uses may be provided by submission for approval to Firefly Entertainment, and that the copyright ownership is retained by the photographer (and no "work made for hire" situation ensues).  Obviously, without the executed agreement between the parties, it is difficult to guess which side has the best or better argument(s).  However, "work made for hire" (WMFH) situations are usually very clearly denoted in such agreements, using the specific language from the statute to make it clear that the photographer is being hired by the performing artist for a specific purpose, for a specific (enhanced) fee, and with copyright ownership clearly aligned into the portfolio of the performing artist.  The confusion of whether the photographer is or is not operating under the WMFH provision is, well, confusing.

What may not be readily apparent is that this is not really a fight over copyright issues (or, at the least, the copyright issues are secondary and subservient to a larger set of issues).  Consider: the images captured by the photographer are of Taylor Swift, not of the stage set-up, costumes, band and back-up singers, or the like.  All individuals, famous or not, have the common law right of publicity - the right to exploit his/her name, image, or likeness (aka, NIL rights), or prohibit exploitation by others.  It is a non-federalized form of intellectual property, but tends to be a companion to trademark litigation cases and/or other forms of unfair competition.  And despite these cases not generally grabbing the headlines the way a good patent, trademark, or copyright row grabs, these cases are often more interesting and fairly important (esp. for the entertainer or athlete involved).  In the case of someone as famous as Swift, the ability to exploit and protect against against undesirable (or perhaps over) exploitation makes this form of intellectual property particularly useful for individuals with an established and branded identity.

Right of publicity, and esp. the NIL issue, has grabbed headlines recently with the litigation spurred by former collegiate athletes Sam Keller (Arizona St. quarterback) and Ed O'Bannon (UCLA basketball center) and the class of current and former  collegiate athletes each represented in suing the NCAA and EA Sports.  Although the cases were different, each touched on the right of athletes to exploit their NIL rights.  In Keller et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued EA Sports, surviving an appeal, for its use of collegiate NIL in their popular (and realistic) collegiate video games.  After surviving the EA Sports appeal, the NCAA settled with the Keller plaintiffs for $20 million.  In O'Bannon et al., the plaintiffs successfully sued based on an anti-trust claim that collegiate athletes were not allowed by the NCAA and its member institutions to individually or collectively negotiate with EA Sports (the advantageous beneficiary of amateurism concepts) for pecuniary gain in the use of collegiate athletes' NIL.  Because EA Sports and the NCAA had negotiated the use of NILs of collegiate athletes for a sizeable licensing sum, there is established value in the NILs of the athletes.  By cutting out the athletes, and by denying the athletes a cut of the licensing fee royalty, the plaintiffs alleged that the actions of EA Sports and the NCAA were anti-competitive and a restraint on commercial trade.  This case was also sent up for appeal before the Ninth Circuit, with a decision looming.

Accordingly, rights of publicity and NIL issues are of considerable importance, esp. when the prospect of others free-riding and making a considerable profit.  While it may appear such celebs are on a power trip, protecting one's valuable NIL in the age of electronic media is a harrowing but necessary proposition.