The case has shown that law firms have to be prepared to take on pro bono cases for the long haul. Drinker first got involved in the issue being contested in the Blackhorse case in 1992.
“The reality is that once you are in for a penny, you are in for a pound,” said Brown. “That has proved to be the case with Blackhorse.”
In 1992 Drinker took on a pro bono case on behalf of Suzan Harjo, a Native American who filed a petition before the TTAB challenging the trademark registrations of NFL team Washington Redskins. The TTAB ruled in favor of Harjo in 1999, only for a district court to grant summary judgment to Pro Football in 2002. A Washington, D.C. court affirmed this on the basis of laches.
In 2006, Amanda Blackhorse and other younger Native Americans initiated a complaint. In June last year, this led to the TTAB cancelling six trademark registrations of the Redskins. Pro Football filed a civil action naming Blackhorse as a defendant. Summary judgment in the case is set for June and a trial set for July.
Brown said that Drinker has a written policy about whether to take on pro bono cases or not.
“Pro bono cases are those that we can take for those that are indigent or unable to afford it,” he said. “There are not too many hard calls. The Harjo and Blackhorse ones show some of the interesting aspects of our policy. These people were not able to afford the services. So it was easy to say, ‘If we are going to do it, then we have to do it pro bono.’”
The law firm takes into account the significance to the community at large.
“The firm will not refuse to assist public interest matters because they are controversial,” said Brown. “They are not subject to an ideological screen. So we could find ourselves on two sides of an issue in two different pro bono cases.”
