The Washington football team ended the use of "Redskins" in their name two years ago. This was done after they had insisted on keeping it for years, but were under intense pressure from their advertising sponsors to change the name or they would withdraw their funding. In business we choose to do many things even though we are not "legally required" to do them. But why was the trademark even legal?

Review the summary of the U.S. Supreme Court case Matal v. Tam (2017) on the oyez site https://www.oyez.org/cases/2016/15-1293(Links to an external site.) and other commentary online(Links to an external site.) and answer the following:

1. The Washington football team trademark, despite the video above, was never withdrawn and the court action referenced in the above video was dismissed and never appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court after the Tam Case was decided; what about the decision in Tam and its effect on the Lanham Act convinced the government to withdraw its case against the Washington football team?

Based upon the resources, cases and videos above, how do you think the Supreme Court would rule should this Quebec City store's trademark come before them? Make sure you reference what you got out of the videos and cases in your answer.