Opinion ID: 521895
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: BVA's Congressional Charter

Text: 27 BVA argues that, regardless of whether blinded veterans is protectable as a trademark, this court can affirm the district court's injunction on the basis of BVA's congressional charter. That charter provides: 28 [BVA] and its duly authorized regional groups and other local subdivisions shall have the sole and exclusive right to have and use in carrying out its purposes the name Blinded Veterans Association and such seals, emblems, and badges as the corporation may lawfully adopt. 29 36 U.S.C. Sec. 867 (1982). The Association asserts that this charter grants BVA not only the exclusive use of the precise name 'Blinded Veterans Association' (and the letters 'BVA'), but also the right to prevent anyone else from using a confusingly similar name or logo. Brief for Appellee at 14. For support, BVA relies on San Francisco Arts and Athletics, Inc. v. United States Olympic Committee, 483 U.S. 522, 107 S.Ct. 2971, 97 L.Ed.2d 427 (1987) (SFAA ). That case involved a congressional charter granting the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) the exclusive use of the word Olympic. See 36 U.S.C. Sec. 380(c) (1982). Based on the congressional act, the Supreme Court upheld an injunction preventing San Francisco Arts and Athletics from using the word Olympic in conjunction with the Gay Olympic Games. 30 A comparison of BVA's and USOC's charters readily reveals a crucial distinction between SFAA and this case. USOC's charter grants it the exclusive use not only of its name per se, but also of the word Olympic. See id. 15 BVA's charter, however, gives the Association exclusive use only of the name Blinded Veterans Association and the specific symbols BVA adopts. See 36 U.S.C. Sec. 867. BVA's charter does not extend to the words blinded veterans any more than it does to the individual words blinded, veterans, or association. Given the clarity of the confined statutory language, unclouded by the sparse legislative history, see, e.g., H.Rep. No. 2323, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2 (1958), we find no basis for believing that Congress intended the scope of the charter to extend beyond its literal terms. 16 We therefore hold that BAVF has not violated BVA's charter.