[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10129.msg91400#msg91400 date=1403306027]

Just to be clear, the power of the government to grant or revoke trademarks is not rooted in the first amendment, but rather in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which states that Commerce has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  A trademark is considered an exercise of commerce, and falls within the Commerce clause, unless used exclusively within a state.

No issue with this.

Since none of this is to say that the Redskins cannot continue to use their name, I completely fail to see how this represents a suppression of speech. 

If a government agency puts on onerous surcharge on newspapers, would you consider that a suppression of speech?  If a government statutes allowed companies in competition with each other to sue for damages if a competitor made true but critical statements about the competitor's product, would that be a suppression of speech?  If the government taxed all professional soccer organizations in the US when they used the term "football" in any of its advertising or trade documents, would that be a suppression of speech?  Of course.  Now whether not its a first amendment issues is a separate question, because not all speech is protected.
[/quote]

But there is no surcharge on the Redskins.  Nobody can sue the Redskins for damages for being called the Redskins.  The government is not taxing the Redskins for using the word "Redskins".  None of your examples apply here.

The loss of registration doesn't even prevent the Redskins from suing infringers under common law, since there is no requirement that the trademark be registered in the United States.  Yeah, their protections aren't as strong, but it is unclear that the Redskins are going to be significantly harmed by the decision.  The decision is more symbolic than anything else.

BC

[BostonCard]

[quote author=Boston Card link=topic=10129.msg91400#msg91400 date=1403306027]

Just to be clear, the power of the government to grant or revoke trademarks is not rooted in the first amendment, but rather in the commerce clause of the Constitution, which states that Commerce has the power "To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."  A trademark is considered an exercise of commerce, and falls within the Commerce clause, unless used exclusively within a state.

No issue with this.

Since none of this is to say that the Redskins cannot continue to use their name, I completely fail to see how this represents a suppression of speech. 

If a government agency puts on onerous surcharge on newspapers, would you consider that a suppression of speech?  If a government statutes allowed companies in competition with each other to sue for damages if a competitor made true but critical statements about the competitor's product, would that be a suppression of speech?  If the government taxed all professional soccer organizations in the US when they used the term "football" in any of its advertising or trade documents, would that be a suppression of speech?  Of course.  Now whether not its a first amendment issues is a separate question, because not all speech is protected.
[/quote]

But there is no surcharge on the Redskins.  Nobody can sue the Redskins for damages for being called the Redskins.  The government is not taxing the Redskins for using the word "Redskins".  None of your examples apply here.

The loss of registration doesn't even prevent the Redskins from suing infringers under common law, since there is no requirement that the trademark be registered in the United States.  Yeah, their protections aren't as strong, but it is unclear that the Redskins are going to be significantly harmed by the decision.  The decision is more symbolic than anything else.

BC