Ronn TorossianRonn Torossian

A court case that has wound its way through the American justice system for the past couple of years will have a major impact on the public relations concerns of many different brands and public personalities competing in the marketplace of ideas. A recent Supreme Court ruling struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks.

The case was originally brought by the rock group The Slants, after the group’s founder, Simon Tam, attempted to trademark the name and was refused by the US Patent and Trademark Office. In its response to denying the trademark, the PTO stated the denial was on the basis that the name disparages Asians.

Of that unanimous decision, Justice Samuel Alito said, “It offends a bedrock First Amendment principle: Speech may not be banned on the ground that it expresses ideas that offend …”

Tam, who along with every member of The Slants, is Asian, and understood the controversial nature of the name, which is why he chose it. The band was hoping to take back the offensive nature of the word by defiantly embracing the term. And a federal appeals court ruled the law barring offensive trademarks is unconstitutional. Later, the Supreme Court agreed with this assessment. The Slants can trademark their name.

In a broader context though, this ruling has far-reaching implications. One of the biggest legal weapons of groups who oppose sports teams using names they consider offensive — e.g., the Washington Redskins — is that those trademarks were illegal. Now, though, these groups will have to go back to the drawing board if they hope to force the issue.

That puts their strategy squarely back in the court of public opinion. Opponents of teams like the Redskins will have to win their case by winning over the hearts and minds of enough people in order to increase the social or financial pressure on the team to make the change. There’s no doubt this will be an uphill battle. There’s near unanimous fan support to keep the team name, so any change will have to come from outside pressure. Many native groups are on record saying they’re not offended by the name, so even the group protesters are trying to protect don’t necessarily feel they need this kind of help. In fact, recent polls have shown up to 90 percent of Native Americans are not offended by the team’s name.

But that remaining ten percent is very passionate about setting things right, as they see it. This group says the name is a racial slur and should not be tolerated, and they’re working hard to bring about a change, and they know they have a long way to go.

Given time and the right narrative, they may be able to get it done … though it would be difficult. If fans are happy and many of the people supposedly offended are only offended in the extreme minority, those carrying the “offended” message will have to work that much harder to get traction trying to build public support for a name change.

Just don’t go looking to team owner Dan Snyder for support on this issue. When he heard about the Slants ruling, Snyder had this to say: “I am thrilled. Hail to the Redskins.”

***

Ronn Torossian is CEO of 5WPR, one of America’s leading independently owned PR firms.