The Urban Outfitters example is neg…

Later within the Navajo Nation docket, the District Court granted the Navajo Nation's motion for summary judgment and determined that the NAVAJO trademarks had not become generic, even noting that a "strict construction of trademark forfeiture is especially appropriate given the origin of the "Navajo" mark and the fiduciary duty the United States owes the Indian Tribes."95 The Court noted that Urban Outfitters failed to show that the NAVAJO trademarks had become generic in the minds of consumers or that the Navajo Nation abandoned the marks. For those reasons, the tribe successfully had Urban Outfitters' affirmative defenses and counterclaims of genericness, and abandonment, thrown out with prejudice.96 The parties would eventually agree to an undisclosed settlement.97 Though it was not a trial win for the tribe, the Navajo Nation case demonstrates that tribes can and should monitor and regulate third-party use of their names. It also reveals that courts are willing to evaluate the fiduciary role that the United States maintains with tribes when dealing with tribal intellectual property rights.