If a university applies for trademark protection for the team name 'Scalpers' and a logo depicting a Native American with an ax, what is the likely outcome?

• A. Trademark protection would be rejected because the mark was shown to be immoral, deceptive, scandalous, or disparaging.
• B. Trademark protection would be granted because it is distinctive.
• C. The mark would be treated as generic.
• D. The mark would be protected under state law only.

Answer: (A)

The concept being tested is how marks can be denied registration when they are considered disparaging, immoral, or scandalous under the Lanham Act. In this scenario, the team name “Scalpers” paired with a logo depicting a Native American with an ax could be read as insulting or demeaning toward Native Americans. That kind of disparaging portrayal has historically been a reason for the USPTO to refuse trademark protection. So, on that traditional basis, the mark would be rejected.

It’s helpful to note that, in more recent Supreme Court decisions, the grounds of disparagement and immorality/scandalousness have been struck down as unconstitutional barriers to registration. If applying today’s broad constitutional rule, the mark wouldn’t be rejected solely for those reasons and could proceed unless other issues (like likelihood of confusion with an existing mark or descriptiveness) arise. The other options don’t fit as well because a mark isn’t merely generic, and federal protection isn’t confined to state law; and the rejection on disparagement or immorality would not be a valid standalone basis under current law, though historically it would have been.