Abstract
In this note, Jeffrey Lefstin examines the First Amendment implications of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's decision to cancel the trademarks of the Washington Redskins. He concludes that if analyzed under the Supreme Court's current commercial speech doctrine, the cancellation would almost certainly be held to violate the Redskins' First Amendment rights. However, Lefstin argues that the trademarks' lack of informational content renders commercial speech doctrine largely irrelevant to the First Amendment analysis. He proceeds to explore unconstitutional conditions and public forum analyses, which do not depend on the trademarks' informational content. Nonetheless, Lefstin finds that the cancellation is likely unconstitutional under these doctrines as well.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
