Commanders, Guardians, and the Trademark Litigation Changing the Face of Professional Sports

Two of the most recognizable features of any sports team are their name and mascot, two elements of sporting identity which often have their use governed by trademarks. In considering team names and other trademarked material related to sports teams, the court of public opinion often provides the most typical arena for affecting change. Within the last couple of years, public backlash has led to multiple major sports teams changing their team names. 

In 2020 the Washington Redskins temporarily changed their name to the Washington Football Team before permanently settling on the Washington Commanders earlier this year. The Cleveland Indians announced last year that they would be switching to the Cleveland Guardians moving forward. Both teams’ previous names had been considered culturally insensitive and contributed to stereotypes of Native Americans. In addition to the Commanders and Guardians, the Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, and other organizations are coming under similar fire for their team names, chants, and jerseys. 

Just as important, yet much less publicized, to the long-term viability of a sports team’s name or other customs are various courts’ interpretations of trademark law. Trademark law exists in many forms and can influence what teams can call themselves as well as what constitutes permissible actions by their fans and players. Both the Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians were affected by trademark rulings while grappling with the idea of changing their name. This article will explore the multiple ways in which trademark law can influence a team’s name. 

Trademark Litigation and the Washington Redskins

The Washington Commanders, formerly known as the Washington Redskins, famously faced years of public criticism for their team name. Such criticism was ultimately successful for protestors as the organization switched names in 2020. However, a Supreme Court case threatened to put the team’s name in jeopardy years before. 

In 2014, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) canceled the team’s trademark on the name “Redskins” after deeming it offensive and thus illegal under the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946. With this cancellation, the organization would forfeit all of the protections guaranteed by having a trademark, such as the privilege to not have counterfeit merchandise created. However, the cancellation of the trademark was put on hold until an analogous case was decided by the Supreme Court. This case was Matal v. Tam, a case in which the USPTO denied a trademark from a rock band that called themselves the “Slants,” a term considered offensive to Asians. As in the case with the Redskins, the USPTO based its decision on the Disparagement Clause of the Lanham Act of 1946. The clause disallowed trademarks on materials which: 

“[consist] of or [comprise] immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the plaintiff Tam by holding that the Disparagement Clause violated the freedom of speech guaranteed by the First Amendment. This ruling was a massive victory for the Redskins’ ownership, who were openly fighting in favor of the team’s name, arguing that it “represents honor, respect, and pride.” 

The ruling in Tam solidified trademark protection for the Redskins’ name and undercut any challenges that may have faced the team if that had lost such protection. As previously noted, it was public pressure that ultimately led to the team changing its name away from the Redskins. Had the ownership continued to resist, the ruling in Tam would have provided a clear precedent defending the trademark status of the team as the Washington Redskins. This is important as other teams whose names are widely considered less offensive than the Redskins, are facing some pressure to make a switch. Such a switch will not be able to be forced legally through trademark litigation as a result of Tam. 

State-Level Trademark Registration and the Cleveland Guardians

After deciding to change its name, the newly renamed Cleveland Guardians Baseball LLC faced its own trademark challenge. After announcing its new name, the organization was sued by a local roller derby team, who also used the name Cleveland Guardians. In this instance, the Roller Derby Guardians alleged that the baseball team’s use of the name Guardians would create confusion and negatively affect the roller derby team as a result of them being smaller than the Major League Baseball team attempting to use the same name as them. The Roller Derby Guardians had not filed a trademark of their name with the USPTO but had registered with the State of Ohio prior to the baseball team’s renaming. As a result of this, the Roller Derby Guardians had a common law trademark, which is regional and is established by use in a specific geographical area. In securing a common law trademark, the Roller Derby Guardians gave themselves very narrow protection. 

However, this narrow protection existed in the only area that it mattered. Having recognized the legitimacy of the Roller Derby Guardians’ position, Cleveland Guardians Baseball LLC worked to settle the matter before it made it to court, ultimately leading to an agreement, whose terms are unknown, in which both teams will operate under the name Cleveland Guardians. 

The recent case of the Guardians and the effective use of common law trademarks should serve as a warning to any team considering changing their name. Before doing so, it is imperative to perform adequate due diligence regarding all names trademarked federally with the USPTO and also regionally with state governments. While the Guardians' situation was resolved without too much trouble, the total rebranding of a professional sports organization is certainly a costly endeavor that could have been completely halted by the existence of a smaller local organization.  

In Closing

While the content of the Commanders' and Guardians' history with trademark law differs substantially in content, these cases help break down the complexity of trademarks in sports. These cases show that trademarks work to protect both small and large teams at the federal and state level. 

With the aforementioned criticism being leveled against teams such as the Atlanta Braves, Chicago Blackhawks, and Kansas City Chiefs as well as multiple major sports leagues looking to expand in the future, it is a near certainty that major teams will be looking for new suitable team names very soon. Thus, an understanding of the different levels and protections involved in trademark law will become increasingly relevant in avoiding future legal conflicts.