What will the Supreme Court do in The Slants case?

The U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the case of whether a Portland, Oregon-based rock band can trademark the name, The Slants.  The long, winding case history stems from whether an Asian American rock group could call itself a traditionally derogatory name.

According to the band’s leader, the name was meant to empower and retake the meaning of the racial slur which refers to the physical eye trait of many Asians.

The Court seemed weary of the portion of the 1946 Lanham Trademark Act which prohibits the registration of a trademark that “may disparage…persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”  Some of the justices believed that it would engage the government in determining “viewpoint discrimination” as there would need to be a determination on whether a trademark was positive or negative speech.  The example of whether an entity could trademark The Slants are Superior was used as an example.

The justices noted that negative or even offensive speech is eligible for copyright protection but the Lanham Act precludes this happening for trademarks.

Justice Anthony Kennedy noted, “So the government is the omnipresent schoolteacher?”

On the other side, the justices took issue with The Slants attorney as they indicated that the band was free to call themselves the name but they are asking the government to endorse it via a federally registered trademark.

They also found it hard to reconcile the issue that the trademark office could deny registration that denigrated an individual or a competitor’s product yet still be protected under the First Amendment.  A hypothetical which would allow trademark rights to a libelous mark in which a court may find such cause of action and subsequent damage might still be protected under the First Amendment.  The circular application of law did not make sense to the justices.

The written opinion will not be out until June and its hard to make a call on how this will turn out.

The NFL’s Washington Redskins will be interested onlookers as their “Redsins” mark was cancelled under the same section of the Lanham Act as cited here before the court.  If the Court strikes down the portion of the Lanham Act, the Redskins will certainly seek to reapply its mark.

The issue seems to hinge on whether the justices believe the application of the Lanham Act seeks to overreach in dragging the government into determining what is discrimination versus reconciling the Lanham Act and the First Amendment.

Washington state unlikely to pass DFS law in 2017

For those hoped 2017 would be the year that Washington State would legalize Daily Fantasy Sports, it appears that the hope has faded just 18 days into the new year.

A Senate Commerce Committee hearing on a Daily Fantasy Sports bill which would classify DFS as a game of skill did not provide any timeline as far as movement and senate committee chair Michael Baumgartner indicated that there would be no chance that Daily Fantasy Sport will move this year.

The bill would classify DFS as a game of skill and not gambling for purposes of the Gambling Act.  It defines a fantasy competition and provides certain conditions regarding prizes and the determination of the contest winner.

The hearing was the first for the bill although some committee members noted it was similar to one introduced last year.

Senate Bill 5169 would classify Daily Fantasy Sports as a game of skill rather than that of chance which would exempt it from any classification of gambling. According to the proposed bill, “[a]ll prizes and awards offered to winning participants are established and made knwon to the participants in advance of the game or contest and teh value of the prizes and awards is not determined by the number of participants or the amount of any fees paid by participants.”  Ensuring the classification of skill, the proposed legislation notes that wins “reflect the relative knowledge and skill of the participants and are determined predominantly by accumulated statistical results of the performance of individuals in multiple real world sporting or events…”

Testifying in favor of the bill was former state attorney general Rob McKenna who now works at a law firm representing DraftKings and FanDuel.  McKenna indicated that there were 40 states that allow Daily Fantasy Sports.  Ohio would soon be the 41st state with legislation pending.  McKenna is hopeful that Washington the 42nd state.

The committee asked McKenna about how other states have addressed regulation to which he referred them to states such as Colorado, Virginia and Maryland.

In addition to McKenna, Maureen Greeley, the Executive Director of the Evergreen Council of Problem Gambling testified before the committee that warned of gambling addiction and the concern about regulation.

It was clear that without a lot of detailed questions regarding the bill, that the committee is taking baby steps in learning the intricacies of Daily Fantasy Sports and without the education, it’s unlikely that we’ll see DFS legal in Washington in 2017.

For more background on the battle for DFS in Washington state, I wrote a piece last year.

U.S. Supreme Court hears oral arguments in Lee v. Tam

Can an Asian American rock band trademark the name, The Slants was at issue before the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday afternoon.  The much talked about case which may affect the NFL’s Washington Redskins trademark looks at whether the USPTO can preclude from trademarking names that might disparage.

A text of the oral argument can be found here.

Judge chides Al Haymon lawyers, lawsuit filed by Golden Boy proceeds in federal court

Via MMA Payout:

Golden Boy Promotions won a round against Al Haymon in court earlier this week as Judge John Walter denied Haymon’s motion to stay the court action to arbitrate the issues before the court.  As a result, the case will proceed in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.

The Court chided Haymon’s attorneys as on September 1st, Arbitrator Daniel Weinstein determined that Golden Boy’s claims related to events post-January 1, 2015 were not within the scope of the arbitration provision signed by the parties in the lawsuit.  Thus, while a portion of the claims presented in Golden Boy’s lawsuit may have been subject to an underlying arbitration agreement, some claims, namely the Antitrust claims were not subject to arbitration.  The Arbitrator also ruled that Bernard Hopkins, another plaintiff in the lawsuit, might not be subject to the Arbitration agreement and indicated further discovery was needed to determine this issue.

Some background from our July 8th post on this issue:

According to court documents, the Settlement Agreement was signed by the parties (including Richard Schaefer and Oscar De La Hoya) on December 18-19, 2014 and exercised by Haymon on January 8, 2015.  According to Haymon, it was a “global” settlement of all issues between the parties.  Haymon made “a substantial payment to Golden Boy” which Golden Boy accepted when the parties decided to end its business relationship.  The Settlement includes an arbitration provision which would require that the parties be subject to an Arbitrator rather than litigate the matter in court.

The Arbitrator evaluated briefing from both parties on the jurisdiction issue and the settlement agreement and on September 1st decided that it did not have jurisdiction over the federal claims.

Order on Motion to Stay