Of Counsel Andrew Lee was quoted in the Corporate Counsel article, “With Name Change, Redskins’ In-House Counsel Must Consider Trademark Uses, Sponsorship Agreements,” about the far-reaching impact of the Washington Redskins changing its name.
The team announced this week that it would retire its name and rebrand amid growing external pressures.
The rebranding process will be much like any other corporate name change, Lee said. “In the sports world, particularly in the NFL, there is value and activation around a team’s name and logo.”
Legally, there is a good reason for not having retired the Redskins name and logo. The name and logo have been a trusted source to the consuming public. “But there’s a historical meaning that predates that use and offends a growing segment of that consuming public, so the entity is also perceived as being a source or origin of that offense—a good reason to make a change regardless of whether the courts say you can keep the name as a registered trademark,” Lee said.
People
Related News
25 July 2024
In the News
Donald Schroeder on Groff – ‘Supreme Court decision is inviting a more fact-based analysis’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Donald Schroeder assessed the impact of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in a religious accommodation case as it returns to the district court in the Law360 article, “A Year After High Court Spotlight, Groff Case Still A Bellwether.”
24 July 2024
In the News
Louis Lehot Featured in Q&A on How Startups Can Prepare for IPO
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Louis Lehot features in the Q&A, "How startups can get in top shape for an IPO, according to Silicon Valley lawyer Louis Lehot," part of Business Insider's Road to IPO' series.
24 July 2024
In the News
Courtenay Brinckerhoff on Patent Cap in Drug Pricing – ‘Hard to predict if this will make a difference’
Foley & Lardner LLP partner Courtenay Brinckerhoff discussed a recent bill passed in the U.S. Senate aimed at lowering drug prices by limiting the number of patents that can be asserted in cases over biosimilars in the Law360 article, “Patent Cap In Drug Pricing Bill Seen As Having Muted Effect.”