asian american rock band the  slants, who say they chose their name as a way to reclaim a term  usually considered a racial slur, cannot trademark the name  because it is disparaging, a us appeals court ruled on monday the decision by the us court of appeals for the federal  circuit rejected the band's argument that the government's  refusal to grant a trademark violated its free speech rights the ruling could have implications for the high profile  fight over whether the national football league's washington  redskins should lose its trademarks the slants, who say they chose their name as a way to reclaim a term usually considered a racial slur, cannot trademark the name because it is disparaging, a us appeals court has ruled  the portland, oregon based band, which plays a kind of  grunge music it calls chinatown dance rock, applied for  trademarks in 2010 and 2011, and was rejected both times on the  grounds the name disparaged asians the band appealed its lawyer, ronald coleman, argued that  the name was a healthy reappropriation of a term usually  considered a slur, much like the lesbian motorcycle club dykes  on bikes, which did get a trademark the band argued that in acting as a 'referee of political  correctness,' the us patent and trademark office violated the  first amendment the three judge panel of the federal circuit said there was  evidence the term is offensive to people of asian descent it  said that there was no free speech violation since a refusal to  federally register a trademark does not prevent the applicant  from still using it the portland, oregon based band, which plays a kind ofgrunge music it calls chinatown dance rock, applied fortrademarks in 2010 and 2011, and was rejected both times on thegrounds the name disparaged asians  despite upholding the rejection of the slants trademark,  us circuit judge kimberly moore said in a separate,  non binding opinion that it might be time to revisit the federal  trademark law's disparagement provisions, which she said  probably would not hold up under current free speech laws the  us supreme court has said that even though some speech may be  offensive, that 'does not justify its suppression,' she said the case has parallels to the washington redskins' lawsuit  against five native americans who successfully convinced the pto  in june to cancel the nfl team's trademarks because that name  disparages native americans the team is appealing the  cancellation, saying the disparagement provision violates the  first amendment coleman called monday's opinion 'unnecessarily politicized' and said the band would likely seek review of the decision by  the full federal circuit court the uspto declined to comment the decision by the us court of appeals for the federalcircuit rejected the band's argument that the government's refusal to grant a trademark violated its free speech rights 
the us court of appeals the national football league's washington redskins
the us court of appeals has rejected the band's argument that the government's refusal to grant a trademark violated free speech rights . the band say they chose their name as a way to reclaim the disparaging term . ruling could have implications for whether the national football league's washington redskins should lose its trademarks 