Use It or Lose It: Is the "Redskins" Trademark Really Retired?

[1]

Three names in just six years—the Washington Commanders, formerly known as the Washington Football Team and, most notably, the Washington Redskins, have undertaken a significant rebranding initiative to distance themselves from the racially offensive connotations of their original name.[2] In response to backlash from fans, advocacy groups, and major sponsors Washington retired the name and brand “Redskins” in July of 2020.[3] The franchise stated that its principal goal was to create a trademark that better represents the tradition of Washington football as well as maintain pride amongst the team’s supporters.[4] At the beginning of the 2026 NFL season, however, the team brought elements of its retired branding back into the marketplace; the Commanders released a limited-edition merchandise drop including a graphic t-shirt and replica jersey honoring former players Art Monk, Darrell Green, and Sean Taylor.[5] While the team experienced support from some fans—the merchandise sold out in around forty-eight hours—others disparaged the Commanders’ revival of a brand that they claimed was hurtful to the franchise and fanbase.[6] The team’s decision to launch merchandise with the former name and logo presents an intersection of business strategy and trademark law that raises the question of why a company would continue commercially using a brand it has otherwise dismissed.[7]

Trademark Abandonment

A trademark is a word, name, symbol, or device that a company or franchise utilizes to differentiate its goods, products, or brands within the marketplace.[8] Furthermore, while there is a benefit to registering a trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, trademark rights generally derive from its active use in commerce.[9] Trademark abandonment occurs when the use of a mark is “discontinued with intent not to resume such use.”[10] Lack of use for three consecutive years constitutes prima facie evidence of abandonment, creating a rebuttable presumption that the trademark owner has abandoned the mark.[11] Importantly, use must be bona fide use in the ordinary course of trade, rather than use undertaken merely to reserve rights in the mark.[12] If a trademark is abandoned, the original owner generally loses the exclusive rights associated with the abandoned mark, potentially allowing third parties to adopt the mar, subject to any other applicable intellectual property rights and legal restrictions.[13]

The court has held in Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd.[14] that the Los Angeles Dodgers had abandoned the former “Brooklyn Dodgers” mark following the team’s relocation.[15] The court determined that the sporadic historical uses of the former name were insufficient to preserve trademark protection absent meaningful commercial use and an intent to resume such use.[16] These discussions demonstrate that maintaining a historical association with a retired brand does not necessary preserve the trademark rights associated with it.[17] 

Good Faith Use or Bare Minimum?

While the Commanders have incorporated their new name and logo so as to separate themselves from their repudiated “Redskins” identity, the franchise has stated that they have a desire to maintain the Redskins trademark because they do not want others adopting and using it.[18] As a result, the Commanders have had to embrace the Redskins trademark, as demonstrated in their limited-edition merchandise sale, to relieve any risks of abandonment that would revoke their exclusive use of the mark.[19] 

Although the merchandise’s commercial success may support an argument that the Commanders engaged in genuine marketplace activity, the sale of goods bearing a trademark does not necessarily establish bona fide trademark use.[20] The critical question is whether the former name and logo continues to identify the source of the merchandise or merely function as nostalgic references to the team’s history.[21] Moreover, continued use of the former branding on merchandise does not necessarily preserve trademark rights across every category of goods or services, particularly where the franchise no longer uses the name to identify its professional football operations.[22] 

This strategic brand revival raises questions about whether the franchise has met the standards of genuine, good faith use of a trademark in the stream of commerce as well as whether the Commanders’ business strategy will pave the way for other businesses with retired or discontinued brands to similarly implement limited merchandise sales to preserve trademark rights.[23] Furthermore, the Commanders’ use of the Redskins trademark through temporary merchandise sales in the marketplace could push courts to define where trademark law draws the line between legitimate commercial use and perfunctory use solely intended to avoid abandonment.[24] 

The Commanders’ trademark strategy highlights the tension between retiring a controversial brand and preserving a trademark; although the team has moved away from its former identity of the Washington Redskins, trademark law has created an incentive for the franchise to continue presenting former marks to preserve their rights.[25] The Commanders’ situation demonstrates how trademark law can influence corporate strategy with respect to rebranding, merchandising, and the preservation of valuable intellectual property, ultimately conveying the complexities that arise when a company seeks to control the trademarks associated with a brand that they have otherwise.[26]

References

[1] Photo by Anders Krøgh Jørgensen, American Football Stadium, Unsplash (Aug. 20, 2019),  https://unsplash.com/photos/american-football-stadium-sYY1FlMHOV4

[2] See Darren Haynes & Nick Kurtz, TIMELINE: Here’s What Led to the Washington Football Team Name Change, WUSA9 (Feb. 1, 2022, at 13:31 EST), https://www.wusa9.com/article/sports/nfl/washington-commanders/washington-football-name-change/65-c8a027c8-7a1a-40dd-919b-c36616eeed24.

[3] See Jeff Kerr, Washington Redskins Change Name: Here's a Timeline Detailing the Origins, Controversies and More, CBS Sports (July 13, 2020, at 12:42 EST), https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/washington-redskins-name-change-heres-a-timeline-detailing-the-origins-controversies-and-more/.

[4] See Statement From The Washington Football Team, Washington Commanders (July 13, 2020, at 09:00 EST), https://www.commanders.com/news/washington-redskins-retiring-name-logo-following-review.

[5] See Erin Keller, Washington Commanders Sell Throwback Merch with Controversial ‘Redskins’ Logo, The Independent (Aug. 28, 2026, at 14:22 EST), https://www.the-independent.com/bulletin/sport/washington-commanders-redskins-merch-b3041251.html.

[6] See id.

[7] See Jay Kotzker, The Two Minute Warning: What the Commanders’ Retro Merch Drop Teaches Us About “Use It or Lose It” Trademark Law, Holon L. Partners (Sep. 9, 2026), https://holonlaw.com/trademark/commanders-trademark-abandonment/.

[8] See 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2018).

[9] See id.

[10] See id.

[11] See id.

[12] See id.

[13] See Major League Baseball Props., Inc. v. Sed Non Olet Denarius, Ltd., 817 F. Supp. 1103, 1126 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

[14] 817 F. Supp. 1103, 1126 (S.D.N.Y. 1993).

[15] See id. at 1115–17

[16] See id. at 1131–32.

[17] See id. at 1130.

[18] See Eric Flack, Commanders Selling Merchandise with Retired 'Redskins' Name and Logo, Citing Need to Protect Trademarks, WUSA9 (Aug. 25, 2026, at 20:09 EST), https://www.wusa9.com/article/sports/nfl/washington-commanders/washington-commanders-sell-redskins-merchandise-again-trademark-protection/65-dbb48b30-35b8-4525-b7c5-f0f99da5d0db. 

[19] See id.

[20] See 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2018); see also U.S. Pat. & Trademark Off., Trademark Manuel of Examining Procedure § 1202.03 (2026).

[21] See Jack Daniel’s Props., Inc. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, 146–48 (2023).

[22] See 15 U.S.C. § 1127 (2018).

[23] See Chris Buccafusco & Jon J. Lee, How the Washington Commanders Mishandled Selling T-shirts with the Team’s Old Name and Logo, MS Now (Sep. 13, 2026, at 06:00 EDT), https://www.ms.now/opinion/washington-commanders-racist-logo-trademark-law.

[24] See id.

[25] See id.

[26] See Carrie Bader, What the Commanders and X Corp. Teach Us About Keeping a Retired Trademark Alive, JD Supra (Sep. 24, 2026), https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/what-the-commanders-and-x-corp-teach-us-5982578/.

 [MM1]Please find a photo from unsplash. I'm not sure if we can use this one b/c of copyright reasons.