Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional

Their request to trademark the name was denied because it was deemed it could offend people of Asian descent.

The NFL football team, whose name is widely considered offensive to Native Americans, has been fighting a battle to keep their trademark since 2014.

Still, Redskins owner Dan Snyder has stood his ground, arguing that the team name "represents honor, respect, and pride".

Members of the Portland, Oregon-based Asian-American rock band The Slants (L-R) Tyler Chen, Ken Shima, Simon Tam, Joe X. Jiang pose in Portland, Oregon, U.S., August 21, 2015 in a picture released by band representatives. Additionally, Alito said that refusing a trademark based on someone taking offense cuts directly against the First Amendment. A federal appeals court in Richmond, Va., delayed making a ruling while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in the Slants case.

"The Supreme Court is clear that trademarks are private speech, not government speech", he said.

The decision has implications for a case that is already pending over the name of the USA football team, the Washington Redskins.

"The Team is thrilled with today's unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins' long-standing dispute with the government", the statement from attorney Lisa Blatt read.

This particular law is particularly troublesome in that it places the government in a position where it gets to determine what's offensive and what's not, a notion that anyone who values free speech should find, well, troubling. The band challenged the rejection as a violation of free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment, winning at the appeals court level before the government appealed to the high court. She added: "While this may be the right result under the First Amendment and the principles of free speech that are foundational to our country, it seems the responsibility will now pass to the public".

The original lawsuit about the Redskins nickname was brought by plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse, who sued the team and claimed that the name "Redskins" disparaged Native Americans.

While the organization has insisted that its name is not offensive, this recent ruling of the Supreme Court protects even offensive names. Justice Samuel Alito wrote the majority opinion, which was joined by the rest of the Court in its 8-0 conclusion, albeit not universally in its reasoning. In 2014, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board voted to cancel the six trademarks held by the team under the disparagement clause.

Therefore, the court ruled, the disparagement part of the trademark law, a provision in effect since 1946, is unconstitutional.