Pro football v harjo

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo. Berkeley Technology Law Journal. Follow this and additional works at: http://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/btlj. This Article is brought. Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo. C.A.D.C.2005. United States Court of Appeals,District of. Columbia Circuit. PRO-FOOTBALL, INC. Appellee v. Suzan S. HARJO, et al. Case opinion for US DC Circuit PRO FOOTBALL INC v. HARJO. Read the Court.s full decision on FindLaw.

The current case is preceded by a similar case, Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc. filed in 1992 by Suzan Harjo and six other Native Americans.[6] Both. The case was put on hold between 20 as a separate but similar case Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, wound its way through the federal.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96. Facts: In 1992, Harjo(an activist) brought forth a petition to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board(TTAB) on. The cause was a case filed by a group of Native Americans, Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc. That case argued that the trademarks held by the.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - Berkeley Law Schola

Following a limited remand of this Court.s September 30, 2006 Memorandum Opinion and Order, see Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F.Supp.2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003) The ruling of the DC Circuit was handed down on Friday May, 15, 2009, in the case titled Pro Football v. Harjo. In this case the United States.

21069 - United States Patent and Trademark Office

Harjo v. Pro-Football Inc. 50 U.S.P.Q.2d 1705 (TTAB 1999). The TTAB cancelled the registrations. Cancellation did not require Pro-Football to stop using the. Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc. (and now Blackhorse v. Pro-Football) represents a rare intersection between intellectual property law and human. Pro-Football, Inc. the Board cancelled 6 federal registrations of (Significantly, unlike the petitioner in Harjo, the petitioners. claims here were.

Pro-Football Inc. a federal suit in which a group of five American The familiar arguments are fundamentally the same as in Harjo et al v. Suzan Shown Harjo. Raymond D. Apodaca. Vine Deloria, Jr. v. Pro-Football, Inc. ______. Cancellation No. 21,069 to Registration Nos.

evidence, and second, that Defendants. suit was barred by laches. See generally, Pro-Football. Inc. v. Harjo, 284 F. Supp. 2d 96 (D.D.C. 2003).

The Implications of Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc. -

Harjo v. Pro Football, Inc. 30 USPQ2d 1828, 1833 (TTAB 1994) (hereinafter � Harjo�). After seven years of litigation involving multiple discovery. Brief of Law Professors as Amici Curiae in Support of the Petitioners, Harjo v. Pro -Football Inc. No. 09-326 (United States Court of Appeals for the District Of. Apr 26, 2004 2004. Article 1. VOLUME XIV BOOK 2. The Impact of Pro-Football Inc. v. Harjo on. Trademark Protection of Other Marks. Rachel Clark Hughey.