PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 3, 2015
Non-Disparagement of Native American Persons or Peoples in Trademark Registration Act of 2015
Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to conclusively presume that a mark that uses the term "redskin" or any derivation of that term consists of matter which may disparage persons if: (1) it has been, is, or is intended to be used in commerce in connection with references to or images of Native Americans; or (2) the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) determines that the term as included in the mark is commonly understood to refer to Native Americans. (The possibility that a mark disparages persons is grounds for refusing its registration.)
Requires the USPTO to cancel the registration of a mark containing the term "redskin" or any derivation of that term if: (1) it has been or is used in commerce in connection with references to or images of Native Americans, or (2) the USPTO determines that the term as included in the mark is commonly understood to refer to Native Americans.
People & committees
Rep. Honda, Michael M. [D-CA-17] · D–CA
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet.
Referred to the House Committee on the Judiciary.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Aug 12, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.684 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.684 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.684 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.684 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.