Subsequent appeals have been rejected on the basis of laches, which means that the specific Native American plaintiffs had pursued their rights in an untimely and delayed manner.
[10] The USPTO rejected an application to register "Redskins Hog Rinds" because it "consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols".
[20] In a press release the trademark attorney for the team stated that they were confident that they would once again prevail on appeal, and that today's decision will make no difference in the continued use of the Redskins name.
[23] The political columnist George Will portrayed the case as an example of overreach by government regulatory agencies, arguing that there was an "absence of general or Native American revulsion" toward the name.
[31] The ACLU filed an Amicus brief[32] stating that while it found the name Redskins repellant, the government should not be able to decide what types of speech are forbidden, and that the provision of the Lanham Act barring the trademark of disparaging terms is unconstitutionally vague in its wording and has not been applied with consistency.
[33] On March 23, 2015, the Attorney General's Office filed a brief addressing the Constitutional issues, stating that as commercial speech, the team name and logo are not protected by the First Amendment, and that there is a large number of cases supporting the cancellation of the trademarks.
[34] By opening up an inquiry into constitutional issues regarding limits on disparaging speech in order to protect "the unique cultural heritage" of the American Indian population, the case may go well beyond what a football team calls itself.
[37] Judge Lee denied the team's summary judgment motions challenging the constitutionality of the Lanham Act and granted the Blackhorse Defendants' summary judgment motions, finding that "the evidence before the Court supports the legal conclusion that...the Redskin Marks consisted of matter that 'may disparage' a substantial composite of Native Americans."
[38] Team president Bruce Allen expressed surprise at the decision, and that a summary judgement was made by the judge based upon the evidence submitted rather than proceeding to a trial.
The cancellation of federal registration of the trademarks means that the government will no longer take any action against anyone else using the name or logo, such as blocking counterfeit goods from being imported into the country.
In addition to maintaining the validity of all the arguments rejected by both the TTAB and the first appeal,[41] the team has added a list of offensive names that have been given trademarks, thus claiming unequal treatment.
[42][43] Eighteen law professors have jointly filed an amicus brief in the case stating that the relevant section of the Lanham Act is an unconstitutional intrusion into freedom of expression, and rejecting the TTAB opinion that trademarks are government speech not protected by the first amendment.
Both the USPTO and Pro-Football, Inc. requested a review by the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) of the same legal issue, the constitutionality of banning a disparaging trademark.