Pro-Football,Inc. v. Blackhorse et al

Filing 161

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - It is hereby ORDERED that PFI's Motion for Summary Judgment on Constitutional Claims (Doc.54) and Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims I, II, and VII (Doc. 79) are DENIED; it is further ORDERED that Blackhor se Defendants' Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment on Claims Ill-VI (Doc. 105), the United States of America's Motion for Summary Judgment on Constitutional Claims (Doc. 108), and Blackhorse Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment on Cou nts I, II, and VII of Complaint (Doc. 69) are GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that the TTAB's ruling in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc., 111 U.S.P.Q.2d 1080, 2014 WL 2757516 (T.T.A.B. 2014), is AFFIRMED; and it is further ORDERED that the United States Patent and Trademark Office is DIRECTED to schedule the cancellation of the registrations for the following six marks: Registration No.0836122, Registration No. 0978824, Registration No. 098666, Registration No. 0987127, Registration No. 1085092, and Registration No. 1606810. Signed by District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee on 7/8/2015. (dvanm, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
ALEXANDRIA DIVISION

PRO-FOOTBALL, INC.,
Plaintiff,
V.

AMANDA BLACKHORSE, et al.,

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 1:14-cv-01043-GBL.IDD

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on two sets of cross-motions for summary judgment.

First, Plaintiff Pro-Football, Inc. ("PFI"), Defendants Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus BriggsCloud, Phillip Cover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh ("Blackhorse Defendants"), and the

United States of America filed cross-motions for summary judgment on PFI's claims challenging
the constitutionality of Section 2(a) of the Lanham Act (Counts III-VI) (Docs. 54, 105, and 108).
Second, Blackhorse Defendants and PFI filed cross-motions for summary judgment on PFI's

claims contesting the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's ("TTAB") Order cancelling the

registrations of six of PFI's trademarks on the grounds that they consisted of matter that "may
disparage" Native Americans and bring them into contempt or disrepute, and that the defense of
laches does not bar the claims (Counts I, II, and VII) (Docs. 69 and 79). This case concerns

Blackhorse Defendants' petition to cancel the registration of six trademarks owned by PFI on the
grounds that the marks consisted of matter that "may disparage" a substantial composite of
Native Americans and bring them into contempt or disrepute under Section 2(a) of the Lanham

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), at the time of their registrations (1967, 1974, 1978, and 1990).