MR. KOJO NNAMDIFrom WAMU 88.5 at American University in Washington, welcome to "The Kojo Nnamdi Show," connecting your neighborhood with the world. Later in the broadcast, the Washington World Cup soccer bar tour. Where are you watching? But, first, it's a battle that's been raging for decades. Is the name of the Washington Redskins football team offensive to Native Americans and therefore in need of changing?

MR. KOJO NNAMDIAn official answer came today from the United States Patent and Trademark Office which cancelled the team's trademark registration, calling its name disparaging to Native Americans. The team can still appeal the decision, but this legal ruling gives new gravitas to a debate that's been largely emotional thus far.

MR. KOJO NNAMDIIf the decision stands, it could have ramifications not only for the future of the team but for the National Football League as a whole. Thanks to profit sharing among teams, the fate of one affects the revenues of all. Joining me to look at the Patent Office ruling and what it means for the team's future is Victoria Phillips, professor of the practice of law and director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at Washington College of Law at American University. Victoria Phillips, thank you for joining us.

PROF. VICTORIA PHILLIPSThank you for having me, Kojo.

NNAMDIAlso joining us by phone is Lisa Delpy Neirotti, professor of tourism and sport management at George Washington University School of Business. Lisa Delpy Neirotti, thank you for joining us.

PROF. LISA DELPY NEIROTTIThank you.

NNAMDIAnd Mike Ozanian is executive editor and Forbes Media co-host and Forbes Sport -- at Forbes SportsMoney. He joins us by phone from New York. Mike Ozanian, thank you for joining us.

MR. MICHAEL OZANIANThank you.

NNAMDIYou too can join this conversation. If you have questions or comments, the number is 800-433-8850. How do you think Dan Snyder should respond to the decision to cancel his team's trademark registration? How do you think he will respond, 800-433-8850? You can send email to kojo@wamu.org or shoot us a tweet, @kojoshow. Victoria, first, what does the ruling say? And who issued it?

PHILLIPSOkay. So what happened this morning, in the ruling that was issued by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, a panel of administrative law judges that are at our Patent and Trademark Office, issued a ruling that said that the trademarks owned by the Washington football team, the federally registered trademarks, must be cancelled because they are disparaging to Native Americans. And they were disparaging at the times when they were registered which is a violation of a section of our federal trademark laws that prohibit such marks.

NNAMDIOn what basis has the panel concluded that the name is disparaging to Native Americans?

PHILLIPSSo the panel, the panel decided, as was decided -- we have to remember that this is round two of this, as your listeners may know.

NNAMDIOh, yeah. We'll get to that in a minute.

PHILLIPSOkay. Okay. So they decided that the terms were disparaging. And their -- the petitioners, the Native American claimants, had carried their burden because they showed that a substantial composite of the relevant population -- that would be Native Americans -- considered the...

NNAMDIThirty percent, correct?

PHILLIPSYes -- considered the term offensive at the time it was registered. And they relied in this decision on, as they had before in '99, on dictionary definitions from the time that labeled the term offensive and disparaging and contemptuous. And, you know, it was immaterial to the decision today that some, in the Native American community, do not find the terms offensive because they found that substantial composite as required in our federal trademark law.

NNAMDIHow do they settle on what I call the 30 percent rule, the 30 percent figure?

PHILLIPSWell, it was, it was the substantial composite, and it has been, it has been a figure that is deemed -- you know, a third of, a third of the people are being offended by the term.

NNAMDIWe just got a release from the Redskins, from the Washington Redskins. They've released a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the team. It said, "We've seen this story before. And just like last time, today's ruling will have no effect at all on the teams. We are confident we will prevail once again and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case where the Board cancelled the Redskins' trademark registrations and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board."

NNAMDI"This ruling, which of course we will appeal, simply addresses the team's federal trademark registrations. And the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal." Victoria, we'll get to what happened in the previous case in a minute. But, Mike Ozanian, does this ruling mean that Redskins owner Dan Snyder has either to change the team's name or stop selling Redskins merchandise? They say no. What if it's upheld?

OZANIANIf it's upheld, I don't think he has to change the name because, well, if you're talking about merchandise and things like that, they could still sell items under that name. It just...

NNAMDIBut so could I, right?

OZANIANBut so could you.

NNAMDIYeah.

OZANIANBut what percentage of the league's revenue -- of the team's revenue is -- could really be impacted by this, a tiny, tiny fraction. So if they don't change the name, the amount of dilution, I think, would be very, very small, almost insignificant. The vast majority of NFL teams' revenue comes from equally-pooled revenue, whether it be from licensing, broadcasting, pay per -- you know, DirecTV, those means. Even a portion of gate receipts are shared with the visiting team. So the economic impact is small.

OZANIANI think from the league standpoint, probably a bigger, would be, concern would -- if they lose on the federal level, would be, what, if any, ramifications could this be on other issues that the league generally oversees and rules on and governs by itself without outside influence? I don't know what those would be, you know. But could someone potentially then say cheerleaders are offensive, and you can't have any cheerleaders, so on and so forth? I'm not a legal expert. I don't know. But I would suppose that those are the long-term things, that should the Redskins lose this in federal court, that they may be concerned with.

NNAMDIVictoria Phillips, from what I read, the cheerleaders trademark is one of the six trademarks affected here. Is that not correct?

PHILLIPSThat is right. That is right.

NNAMDIAnd, Mike, I was led to believe, and maybe I'm incorrect here, that licensing amounted for a significant amount of revenue both for these teams and the NFL, the fact that only they could produce certain products with the name, and they are -- and of their competitors or individuals like me simply cannot. If we can, you say it's not a major financial impact on the team at all?

OZANIANNot at all. Not if it's just to the Redskins because you have 32 teams, so you have all that money being pooled. So, in effect, the...

NNAMDIOkay.

OZANIAN...Redskins are getting a portion of the revenue, of licensed merchandise that the Giants sell, that the Cowboys sell, and so forth.

NNAMDIOkay. Victoria, as you pointed out, this fight against the Redskins name has gotten to this same point before in 1999. But the NFL won in the end when the case was thrown out on appeal. You were involved in that case. What happened then? And how and why might this time be different?

PHILLIPSYes, Kojo. The original case was filed in 1992 by the lead plaintiff Suzan Harjo. And that case was the case where the Patent and Trademark Office originally cancelled the mark in '99. As you say, from, from that cancellation, '99, for 10 years, the case bounced back and forth in the District in the D.C. Circuit case here on procedural issues. And the D.C. Circuit finally affirmed the denial of it on a legal doctrine named -- called laches. And laches essentially means -- it's an equitable defense that if someone has slept on their rights and, because of that, it's not fair to bring an action when you could have done it earlier.

PHILLIPSSo the lead plaintiffs in that case were deemed to have slept on their rights, and the Supreme Court denied certiorari in that case. And that -- and I wrote an amicus friend of the court brief on that, saying that, in some cases, laches should not apply in cases that are so publicly important like this. So what happened was Jesse Witten at Drinker Biddle & Reath have done -- he and his team there have done wonderful work.

PHILLIPSThey filed an action with a younger set of plaintiffs, and that is the Blackhorse case that was decided today. And some of the, plaintiff, Native Americans in that case had just turned 18, the age of majority at which they could sue, when that case was brought. So theoretically -- and the Patent and Trademark Office today in its decision said that laches should not be a problem in this case, the defensive equitable claim that was brought that ended the first case. It shouldn't be an issue in this case.

NNAMDIIn case you're just joining us, we're talking about the Patent Office ruling cancelling the Redskins trademark and inviting your calls at 800-433-8850. What does this mean to you? How do you feel about buying merchandise with the word Redskins on it or the logo with the Indian chief on the arrow? Give us a call, 800-433-8850, or send email to kojo@wamu.org. Lisa Delpy Neirotti, I've already spoken with Mike Ozanian about the possible financial impact of the merchandise, but -- of the Redskins trademark on its merchandise. But there's also another financial issue, and that is sponsorship. Care to speak to that?

NEIROTTIYes. I mean, the reason why companies pay lots of money for the rights is because they are the exclusive sponsors of the Redskins. And that includes the exclusive right to the marks on their website, on their marketing materials, anything that they do, commercials. So if any company is allowed to use those marks because they're not trademarked, then what's the motivating factor for companies to become a sponsor?

NNAMDIAnd do you have any idea of the financial impact of that on the team, and presumably that also the revenue from that also has to be shared with other teams in the NFL, correct?

NEIROTTINo, not corporate sponsors.

NNAMDIOh.

NEIROTTISo corporate sponsors stay with the team. And the Redskins have some of the largest corporate sponsor guilds of the league. So this would be a definite impact -- financial impact on the team.

NNAMDIOne of their sponsorship deals is, for instance, with the Virginia Lottery?

NEIROTTIYes, Virginia Lottery. I mean, you have Coca-Cola. You have, you know, many others that spend, you know, upward six figures to be a sponsor.

NNAMDIAnd if this ruling is upheld, you're saying that those institutions, like the Virginia Lottery, et cetera, no longer need to pay the Redskins that money at all?

NEIROTTIWell, there's other things besides -- they could still -- they would still pay the rights, but it may be less because it's not as exclusive. So what happens if every company in town starts putting up the logo of the Redskins? That doesn't really separate and distinguish a sponsor from all the other competitors in the marketplace.

NNAMDIMike Ozanian, care to comment on that?

OZANIANThe most of the big money from the sponsors comes to things tied to the stadium. I don't think that somebody, like myself, would go out and spend $500 million to build a stadium so I can maybe get a couple of sponsors. I also don't have the football team. And for the most part, when you look at a lot of the sponsors, they're tied to actions of the team and tied to the team.

OZANIANThose are, those are very, very powerful instruments to help -- and this is one of the reasons why players have looked to get more licensing revenue over the years although they get some now, retired players, because when video games and so forth and those things are sold, it's the actual team itself. So unless there's something here I'm missing, I don't think this particular case is going to allow somebody else to come up with a National Football League team called the Washington Redskins. And I think that, along with the stadium, are the primary attractions to corporate sponsors.

OZANIANThe other thing that sponsors want is they want some comfort in knowing how the image is going to be used. So if I -- I doubt someone's going to pay me a lot of money, simply because I have a logo on it that resembles the Redskins, when they don't know how that logo necessarily is going to presented, but they do know, with the Washington Redskins, that it's going to be tied to the NFL, which is one of the things they pay a lot of -- one of the reasons why they pay so much money.

NNAMDIOn to the telephones. Here is Shaka, in Ft. Washington, Md. Shaka, you're on the air. Go ahead, please.

SHAKAGood morning, Kojo. How are you?

NNAMDII'm well.

SHAKAGood morning to your guests. Kojo, I am one of these people who are very ecstatic about today's ruling. Since 1984 when I found out the origin of this name I've been one of the folks, people locally who have been trying educate folks, as far as the origin of the name and why they need to oppose it. So I'm very ecstatic. But I'm also very dismayed listening to your show.

SHAKAWe all, I believe, agree that the name is disparaging. Like my kids grew up calling the team the Washington football team. Well, I'm hear I'm listening to your show and everyone is still referring to -- by offensive name. Now, Kojo, let me ask you, if the team was called the Washington niggers would everyone on your show right now be using that term or would you be referring to them as the Washington football team? Now, as long as you continue using the term on your air, you legitimize it, too. So I would like to suggest that maybe you start referring to it as the Washington football team and leave that offensive slur off.

NNAMDIWell, Shaka, that's not the conversation we're having right now. The conversation we're having right now is about a ruling made by the U.S. Patent Office. And the ruling wasn't made against the Washington football team. It was made specifically because the name of the team is the Washington Redskins. So in order to talk about the ruling and why that ruling is important at this time we have to use the name of the team, whether or not the station decides not to use the name in the future is a decision for the management of the station to make.

NNAMDIBut, Lisa, you have described this as a shrewd move by activists opposed to the Redskins name, but otherwise, powerless to change Dan Snyder's mind. How so?

NEIROTTIRight. I mean, this does give him an out. Because he has continued to say that he won't change it. And if this ruling is upheld, this will, you know, kind of force his hands. The other thing that I'm looking at is I wonder if the NFL is going to be as supportive in the appeal as they were in the past. Because from some documents I read, it looked like the NFL, along with the Redskins made the appeal. And it's not known yet if the NFL will join in the appeal with the Redskins.

NNAMDIWhat's your view Michael Ozanian? Think the NFL is going to come aboard here because one gets the impression that the NFA (sic) itself is not, well, as enthusiastic as it used to be about the name.

OZANIANI think the decision will be based on whether or not the NFL feels this ruling will have a -- could have an impact on -- as I mentioned earlier -- opening up a can of worms for other similar types of decisions. In other words, what I'm saying is what the NFL enjoys is a tremendous amount of control, certain anti-trust exemptions. And I think it depends on whether or not the NFL feels that if they lose this it could lead to more -- having them lose more of their power and be able to turn the league across many areas, as the way that they see fit.

OZANIANI don't know the answer to that, but I think it's a valid question. And I think that'll ultimately determine it. I also -- I may be the only one here, but I also think that if Dan Snyder were to decide to change the name, let's say he loses in federal court and decides to change the name because he feels that the revenue dilution from licensing and other things would be significant, I necessarily don't see that as a bad thing for him. I mean, let's look at the team since he's bought it. It's been a bad football team. It's not one…

NNAMDIYou had to go there, right?

OZANIAN…of the higher ranks.

NNAMDIYou had to there, right?

OZANIANWell, look, I mean, no. I'm just saying, you know, I'm not doing this because I'm a Giants fan. I mean, I'm just saying it. I'm Dan Snyder. Look, it's one of the most valuable teams in sports, no question. But let's say, you know, he changes the name completely to the -- you know, something that everybody agrees is not insulting to anyone, and then the team is good. Right? So now you've got a team. You've got a good quarterback. You've got RG3. He's playing well.

OZANIANNow the team is -- it's a play-off team. It's a Super Bowl contender. And it's connotation is with a new name, a winning name. You know, there's a certain plus to that. So you almost have a new era, a clean slate.

PHILLIPSBut you also wipe out the historic Super Bowl wins of the Redskins.

OZANIANBut I don't know how many…

NEIROTTIKojo?

OZANIANYeah, I don't know what value that has. In other words, if I'm looking at revenue today, I don't know what value the Super Bowl win, the last one, I guess, was in '87…

NNAMDIOr in '93, I think.

OZANIAN'91, excuse me, '91, has today, you know, all these years later. Certainly, when it comes to merchandise and things like that.

PHILLIPSI think, actually, the NFL is the one to gain from this with all the new merchandising, since it is revenue shared.

NEIROTTIKojo?

NNAMDIBut let's not leap ahead this quickly. Victoria Phillips…

NEIROTTIYes.

NNAMDI…the significant date since Suzan Harjo and others filed with the patent office, seems to be 1992, 1999 and then 2003. Is it likely to be any more rapid this time around?

PHILLIPSI'm not sure, Kojo. I mean, at first, I just -- I appreciate all this talk about NFL revenues and the team and it's storied history, but I don't want to lose sight and I don't want your listeners -- and your first caller, I think, put his finger a little bit on the pulse of this. What decision today said is our federal government -- and with the law of trademark says -- our federal government should not give a property right in a racial, genocidal slur. And that's what this name is.

PHILLIPSAnd I think that if Dan Snyder, at all, the NFL want to continue calling…

NNAMDIWe seem to have lost our callers at this point. But, as you know, we're discussing today's ruling by the patent office, canceling the trademark of the Washington Redskins. So what we're going to do is take a short break. And when we come back we'll continue this conversation. You can call us at 800-433-8850. It will be a brief continuation of the conversation because we have to do our Washington area soccer bar tour, which we'll be undertaking very shortly. We'll take a short break. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.

NNAMDIWelcome back. We're talking about the ruling this morning by the patent office canceling the Washington Redskins trademarks. We're talking with Mike Ozanian. He is executive editor and Forbes Media co-host of Forbes Sports Money. He joins us by phone from New York. Lisa Delpy Neirotti is professor of tourism and sport management at George Washington University School of Business.

NNAMDILisa, what do you think Dan Snyder's next move will be? He's already indicated, I guess, what it is. He's going to fight this.

NEIROTTIRight. He will continue to fight it. And, you know, as I said, depending on, you know, how much the NFL supports and what, you know, how his attorney's position this, only time will tell. But I think, you know, if and when the time is to change the name, there is a great opportunity to revive the team and to bring in new revenues for both the league and the team.

NNAMDIVictoria Phillips is professor of the practice of the law and director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at Washington College of Law at American University. Victoria Phillips, could continue the statement you were making when you were so rudely interrupted?

PHILLIPSYes, Kojo. I'm sorry. I don't really know where I left off. But I…

NNAMDIBut you were underscoring the importance of this, of this decision.

PHILLIPSYes. I mean, the civil rights nature of it. I mean, if you look at the calls for this change, you know, it's a trademark trial and appeal board ruling. It's about the federal property right in our trademark laws. You shouldn't be allowed to have the federal government sanction rights in something that is so hateful to so many people. But it's a civil rights issue, masking as a trademark issue.

PHILLIPSAnd I really don't -- I wanted to make that point because I don't want people to lose sight of the fact that our faith leaders, our civil rights leaders, our president, I mean, this has snowballed way beyond the trademark case. I think there are real issues here about whether…

NNAMDIAnd because of that, Victoria, do you think that it's likely that the case will proceed more quickly than it did the last time?

PHILLIPSWell, I think -- I don't know if I was cut off, but the new patent law makes the appeals process, the eastern district of Virginia, which is called the rocket docket by those in the know. And I don't know how much faster it will happen. They can appeal it -- the pro football can appeal it either in the eastern district of Virginia or, as I said, the federal circuit here in D.C., which is the appeals court for these matters.

PHILLIPSI'm hopeful it will take longer. As I said before, it was 10 years bouncing around the courts. And I think even though the first trademark action was filed in 1992, Native American groups have been protesting this particular football team name for many, many years before that.

NNAMDIAnd, Mike Ozanian, same question to you. How do you think Dan Snyder will respond? Just continue to fight?

OZANIANYeah, I think he will. I think he's going to take it to the federal court. And then I think if he wins, things will go on as they are. And I think there's a good chance things will go on as they are with him, even if he doesn't win, because it's not something that's going to impact the value of his team.

OZANIANBut, as your other guest said, you know, there's an opportunity, you know, just like when teams -- we see teams, they bring on these new uniforms or they go retro uniforms or something else. It's an opportunity to increase money, increase revenue if you do come up with a new name and if you can time it with a successful team on the field.

NNAMDIMichael Ozanian, executive editor and Forbes Media co-host with Forbes Sports Money. Lisa Delpy Neirotti is professor of tourism and sport management at George Washington University School of Business. And Victoria Phillips is professor of the practice of law and director of the Glushko-Samuelson Intellectual Property Law Clinic at the Washington College of Law at American University.

NNAMDIThank you all for joining us. We're going to be taking a short break. When we come back, our Washington World Cup soccer bar tour. I'm Kojo Nnamdi.