Talk:Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

Untitled
The Court of Appeals opinion says nothing about the sufficiency of the evidence presented to the TTAB, and does not reverse the district court upon this ground.

The only issue the Court of Appeals deemed it necessary to address was the question of laches, and even there, it confined its analysis to the claim of laches as directed against only one of the petitioners, who was only 1 year old in 1967 when the trademark was adopted. The Court of Appeals remanded the case to the district court for further evaluation of the laches issue as to that individual petitioner, and that is all it did. The article portrays the decision as far broader than it actually was, and as resolving issues that the Court of Appeals did not discuss, much less resolve, at all. Tarmstro99 15:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right. I've fixed the page accordingly. James Grimmelmann (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:53, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

District Court Opinion
Although the case was ultimately decided upon procedural grounds (Laches), the District Court opinions are notable because they are an explication of an underdeveloped area of the law: 15USC1064 Cancellation on 15USC1052 "immoral, scandalous, or deceptive material" and/or "disparagement" grounds. This article should either develop this topic, or there should be a disambiguation page referencing the District Court opinions. The problem lies in the fact that the cases have essentially the same name,and are distinguished by their legal citation. This is a format that isn't entirely conducive to WikiPedia's naming conventions... 24.193.42.103 (talk) 17:43, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
 * Since all of the opinions relate to the same cause of action, there really should only be one article detailing what happened at all levels of the case. bd2412  T 18:27, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: not moved. Jenks24 (talk) 13:15, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo → Washington Redskins trademark dispute – Since trademark issue has gone through many case titles while retaining the same issues, and will soon have another when the team appeals, the name of the article should be inclusive of all. FriendlyFred (talk) 19:05, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I think Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo should either be moved to the Washington Redskins trademark dispute or a new article created, Washington Redskins trademark dispute, along with the Blackhorse v. Pro-Football. User:cybermannCybermann (talk) 02:17, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
 * See both sides,


 * Oppose, apples and oranges. Washington Redskins trademark dispute should be an article of its own; this is an article on a specific legal case, and should have legal details that go beyond what are necessary to discuss the trademark dispute generally. bd2412  T 20:26, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Questions: Since the original Harjo vs Pro-Football case redirects here, and Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. does not have an article at all, what content would the overall dispute article initially have other than that of the current article? Are the cases noteworthy on their own?FriendlyFred (talk) 00:53, 23 June 2014 (UTC)
 * To attorneys, yes, the cases are noteworthy on their own. This is a highly publicized precedential opinion from a court just below the Supreme Court of the United States. The legal principles enunciated in the case will have been cited by many other court decisions having nothing to do with the specific facts of this naming controversy. bd2412  T 01:47, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Support and expand Red Slash 00:10, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * What could we possibly end up with that would not be a duplicative content fork from the existing Washington Redskins name controversy article, which has a substantial section on the legal cases. bd2412  T 00:36, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Perhaps what is in the "controversy" article could be combined with a less technical version of this article's content to form the basis of a new "debate" article that could then be expanded to go into detail regarding the issues in layman's terms without getting into the details and history of each case. The section in the controversy article could then be reduced to a summary of the debate article with a wikilink.FriendlyFred (talk) 03:29, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * PS. If anyone else want to start the new article, I have collected some references here: User:FriendlyFred/sandbox FriendlyFred (talk) 03:35, 26 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have taken a first stab at it - please feel free to expand. Cheers! bd2412  T 19:05, 27 June 2014 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.