I think what people forget is that the court case is not about forcing washington to change their name, it is wether their name can be trademark in the first place. What makes this case diffcult is that on one side of you have the correct claim that the name is a racial slur relating not to skin tone, but rather the pratice of killing native americans and scaping them as way to offer proof of death. Ironically enough native americans use to do the same things to blacks in the region I grew up in, as far as killing people and collecting bounties. On the other side to this you do have at least one native american group that I know of that describe themselves as redskins, but they don't use the english name but the term in their own lanaguage. Either way I don't see the team changing their name under the current owner, but I will say the owner is blind to fact of the differenent meaning of the name given that he is emotionally attached to the name because it bring back good memories of spending time with his dad. Losing the trademark to the term redskins will cost him money, but he will not be hurting for money. What really is costing him money is putting together bad teams over and over again.

As for people saying that the team name has been around for x amount of years, it is not like native americans had the political power or the legal funds to challenge the trademark when it was first applied for. Either way the courts will sort this out one or the other.