USPTO Cancels Trademark Registration For Washington Redskins
from the finally dept
Given that I've been quite vocal about my interest in the Washington NFL team changing its name from the disparaging "Redskins" moniker to something more civil, you might think that I'm doing some kind of happy dance in my office now that the USPTO has rescinded the trademark registration for the team (something I had predicted, along with others, a while back). Look, I won't pretend like any steps moving us closer to a world where that team's name is changed don't make me happy, but I do take the counterpoints seriously. I don't particularly care for a world where speech deemed "offensive" can't be uttered, nor do I generally like when the government sticks its nose in most things. I understand that completely -- I just think there are some serious arguments for ensuring the government doesn't grant exclusive rights to organizations on the backs of horribly racist terms. So when the USPTO says they're removing the registration because the term is disparaging and they don't want to grant rights for the team to seek trademark damages to that kind of language in all of our names, I happen to think that make sense.
“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,” the board wrote in its opinion, which is here.Again, if you think this is yet another example of government's intrusion on free enterprise, I get where you're coming from. After all, damn it, we wouldn't need to have come to this point if the citizens of D.C. had risen up and refused to go to games until the name was changed. That would have been a far preferable solution. That said, the provision in trademark law forbidding marks of a racial nature is fairly clear and I think there's fairly good reason for that language. As plaintiff Amanda Blackhorse said:
“I am extremely happy that the [Board] ruled in our favor,” Blackhorse said in a statement. “It is a great victory for Native Americans and for all Americans. We filed our petition eight years ago and it has been a tough battle ever since. I hope this ruling brings us a step closer to that inevitable day when the name of the Washington football team will be changed. The team’s name is racist and derogatory. I’ve said it before and I will say it again – if people wouldn’t dare call a Native American a ‘redskin’ because they know it is offensive, how can an NFL football team have this name?”This ruling isn't only in the name of being politically correct to Native Americans, it's about a government office that purports to represent all of us granting exclusive rights based on language that an overwhelming majority of outlets define as racist. The public can and does have an interest in how government represents us and granting trademark to that kind of term just isn't okay.
Now, before anyone gets their First Amendment panties in a twist here, the team doesn't lose the right to use the name and even keeps its registered mark during the appeals process, which has already begun.
The team will almost certainly appeal the case, and it will be able to keep its trademark protection during appeal. Losing the trademark would not force the team to change its name, but it would allow anyone who wanted to use “Redskins” on merchandise or through other means to do so, which could cost the team — and, because of the NFL’s revenue-sharing model, other NFL teams — “every imaginable loss you can think of,” as the team’s lawyers argued in the original case. For that reason, the trademark has long been thought of by opponents of the team’s name as the easiest avenue to changing it.If Dan Snyder, a man who has filed lawsuits claiming anti-semitism, wants to stick to his racist guns and keep the team name, he can. He just doesn't get the ability to seek damages that a registered mark affords him. Speech is actually opened up by this ruling, not infringed upon. In other words, for those of you that think the team name is awesome and/or the USPTO shouldn't be getting involved in this, all is not lost. The racist term you wish to protect can still be used by the team if it wishes, it's just that those of us who think the government shouldn't be sanctioning that kind of thing are finally being represented.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: dan snyder, free speech, redskins, trademark, uspto, washington redskins
Companies: washington redskins
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
This really isn't that hard to understand is it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This I don't Understand
And, as the other comment says, what about the Cleveland Indians, or the Chicago Blackhawks? How come offensive "language" is unacceptable but logos are not?
The other problem, is that then we slide down the slippery slope to censorship. Will the government get to decide on its own what is offensive? How will they know, for example, if "Nip" refers to an Oriental persuasion or a small bite of food? Does a valid trademark suddenly become invalid if applied to the wrong image? Will RCA lose its trademark if Japanese groups complain?
I live close to an area that has Indians, an I've heard plenty of derogatory terms for Indians - Boguns, wagonburners, Hiawathas, bush bunnies, etc. I don't recall hearing redskins as an insult. It seems to me to be in the same camp as the grousp that claim (incorrectly) that squaw means cunt. (It doesn't, but squaw IS a serious insult nowadays, in the same way that calling an Indian male or black male a "buck" is derogatory, only worse.)
Plus, I have objections that the government deciding retroactively what the mores of 50 years ago or more were according to their current politically correct view of the world. The fact that a decent number of people do not feel it is an insult and do not feel it should be changed says something about the real-world perception of the word.
Mark Twain - "how many legs does a dog have if I call the tail a leg?"
Second Banana - "Five?"
MT - "no, four. Just because I call a tail a leg does not make it one."
Just because some groups think a word is an insult, does not make it so.
There's the case of a flight attendant who use the cutesy rhyme "enie, meenie, miney, mo, pick a seat so we can go..." Some black lady got all upset and filed a racism complaint. The flight attendant, like many younger people, grew up never knowing there was an alternative, racist version of what she was saying.
If the Redskins want to change, they will when people stop buying their merchandise and attending their games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This I don't Understand
1. Just because you don't find the term disparaging, doesn't mean it isn't generally considered disparaging.
2. Cancelling a trademark is in no way a slippery slope to censorship.
Now shut up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: This I don't Understand
I think that summarizes your position perfectly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This I don't Understand
Redskins is racist. That is a subjective statement based on each person's views. Many people for a long time have considered the term racist and disparaging. It's just more recently that this group has become loud enough to force the racists' hand on the issue.
Just because something has been historically "okay" does NOT in fact make it okay.
Washington should just change their name to the Washington "Wetbacks".
That's not racist or disparaging at all /s.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: This I don't Understand
Wow, you don't even get it. They call themselves Native Americans. Do you even know where the term indians comes from? A white guy thought he had reached India and called them that and other white people continued to do so.......so sad. I wonder if you would say something racist and proclaim because you didn't know it was ok to contiue using the term....oh wait you did.......
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw...
Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO.
Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail.
And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch.
And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go. Why? Because Barack Obama and Harry Reid (and Tim Geigner) say so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
> or denied every trademark ever.
When you run the USPTO and the president and the Senate Majority Leader make it clear how they feel about a trademark, that's what we call a clue as to what you should do if you want to keep your job.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> apparently it's about "Murica!"
With a comment like that, it's apparent you aren't doing much actual thinking at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
WHO is it who 'decides' what words are 'bad' and 'disparaging', and which are acceptable ? ? ?
you ? ? ?
i don't think so...
the courts ? *snort* that's a fucking joke...
point the two: there is no such thing as 'race', it is a man-made construct to 'otherize' others... that people THEN take up their 'race' (which doesn't exist) as some sort of badge of honor, is silly: we are all the same dog, dog...
third point: from what i have read -as another poster says more politely than i- 'redskins' is NOT held as a derogatory term by all indians; oh noes, what to do ? ? ?
a vote ? the loudest most obnoxious about it 'wins' ? the one with the most indian 'blood' ? or the indians who WERE'NT paid off to allow the indian names usage ?
(see: indians, seminoles, FS*ptui*U)
further, is it only indians who are allowed to determine what is/isn't 'offensive' to them ? ? ? does that go for me, too ?
lastly, so what ? ? ?
i am 'offended' by the portrayal of nearly EVERYONE on teevee, doesn't that mean they have to stop so my delicate sensibilities are not sullied ? ? ?
no, why not ? same 'reasoning'...
(see: slope, slippery)
again: you have the right to NOT be assaulted, you do NOT have the right to NOT be insulted...
that way lies madness...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Sort of like, it's ok for a woman to call some other woman a bitch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
2. "braves" and "indians" are not racist slurs like "redskins" is. Think of it as the difference between calling someone "caucasian" and "whitey". Or "chinese" and "chink". Or "italian" and "wop".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Frankly I'm with AC on asking why they're so obsessed with the Washington Redskins' name of all things and not going after the Braves/Indians instead, since the mascots of those two teams are clearly comical caricatures of Native Americans and could be interpreted as the equivalent of the racist depictions of Asians in early comics/cartoons (think 1940s for reference).
It'll be interesting to see how this goes in court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
you ?
so what does YOUR opinion mean ?
are YOU the leader of the remaining indians ?
no, you are not, so you don't get a say, do you ?
but you ARE ASSERTING this word *is* a slur, and *that* word is not: NOT YOUR PLACE under this scenario...
YOU are speaking for the indians (or whichever cohort is offended today), aren't you ?
as i recall, there has been exactly ONE person posting here with indian heritage who averred that 'redskins' was NOT a slur among them; WHO ARE YOU TO SAY OTHERWISE ?
i don't KNOW what is/isn't a slur to indians in that regard, and DON'T REALLY CARE, because my NUMBER ONE PRIORITY is 'free speech', PERIOD...
IF YOU DON'T INCLUDE THE 'RIGHT' OF PEOPLE TO BE OFFENSIVE IN THE EXERCISE OF THEIR FREE SPEECH, THEN YOU ARE NOT FOR FREE SPEECH...
simply admit it: you are FOR CENSORSHIP because it is convenient for you to look like some cultural hero about this issue, rather than do the hard work of defending bedrock free speech rights which all other rights are dependent upon...
i can tell you from my personal experience: MOST people don't give a shit about 'free speech', they want speech THEY LIKE, period... *that* is their debased 'definition' of free speech...
they are know-nothing idiots and cowards...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, I don't think it will really hit them very hard at all financially. Even though the team lost their trademark on the word "Redskins", they still have trademark on every *other* aspect of their merchandising-- the Indian-head logo (presumably), the team colors combined with the name "Washington" etc.
Now that "Redskins" has gone back to the public domain, other people will be legally allowed to sell merchandise with the name Redskins, but the team will still be the only ones who can legally print "Redskins" on their t-shirts and coffee mugs *along with* the team colors combined with the name "Washington" and the Indian head logo.
The only things Joe Salesman on the street will be able to sell are off-color, no-logo non-team-looking hats and shirts. Who wants to buy that stuff anyway?
I just don't see this as much of a threat to the team's revenue stream.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
If the Redskins stand to lose revenue from an inability to enforce trademarks (i.e. an inability to stop anyone in the world from producing and selling "knockoff" Redskins merch), the entire NFL stands to lose that revenue.
The people behind the trademark lawsuit wanted the name changed and used the lawsuit as a last resort action. They truly believed Snyder would at least consider a name change before things got this far. Since he has said he'll never change the name, however, the stripping of that trademark remains the best possible chance those people have of getting the name changed. When pressure from the other NFL teams falls on Snyder to change the name, he'll either have to change it or expect a little less money rolling into the team coffers.
Something tells me he'll do what's best for business and not for his ego.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
> it would behoove you to change the brand
You don't seem to understand much of what's being said here. The point is, even without a trademark on the Redskins name, "everyone" won't be able to sell team merchandise because the team still has protection for all the *other* aspects of their brand.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, you are correct. I do not understand much of what is being said here, by you. What other protections are there? I can only assume you mean the logo. However, how would they prevent me from selling a coffee mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket? Please explain what other avenues of litigation they would take. If they would use trademark/Lanham Act litigation to stop this and "redskins" is no longer under trademark protection, how would they bring legal action. In May, the franchise presented a former player(Lavar Arrington)with a cease and desist letter because he referred to himself as a former "Redskins great" in an advert for his football camp. What legal action would they take to stop him from stating this now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> mug with the name "Redskins" on it? Or a jacket?
They can't. But they can prevent you from selling that mug or jacket with the name "Redskins" combined with the team colors (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the team's font style (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the team's Indian-head logo (for which they still have a valid trademark), and the word "Washington" (for which they still have a valid trademark if used in the context of the team).
So yeah, you can sell your mug with the word "Redskins" on it, but it can't be maroon and gold, and it can't also have the Indian-head logo and it can't say "Washington". So if all you can sell is off-color mugs and jackets that don't look anything at all like the team's regalia, why would I, as a fan, buy them from you when I can get the real thing from the team's official store?
In other words, who's gonna want to show up on game day wearing a blue hat with just the word "Redskins" on it printed in Helvetica font?
No one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ...
In that case you should have no problem with this ruling, as it's the government removing themselves from the issue, by pulling the government issued and enforced trademark.
The team can still use the name, they just don't have as many government granted legal rights with regards to it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ...
That's a load of baloney. That's like saying the government is "removing" itself from the gay marriage debate by not allowing gay marriage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
Your example would be like the USPTO saying they don't want to be in the debate so they remove all trademarks, not just the ones in question.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
I agree with that.
Well, that doesn't exactly remove them from the debate. What you propose would be analogous to changing the legal requirements so that the USPTO doesn't deny racist terms. That doesn't remove the government from the debate over whether gay marriage SHOULD be legal or whether the USPTO SHOULD be denying racist terms. It only removes them from the debate over whether a specific term is racist or whether a particular couple is gay.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
So no, it is not the same, at least not to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I suspect, if you change the name to whiteskins, you would be considered a white racist.
The removal is just more PC America with the use of governmental units for social justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Snyder doesn’t need to change the name, with or without the trademark. Without the trademark, however, the NFL and its teams (minus the Cowboys who have a special deal in place) will put tremendous pressure on him to change the team’s name. The NFL doesn’t want to lose all that sweet merch dosh, after all.
Government leaves the private sector, the private sector decides how to best handle the situation, and speech (i.e. the ability to use Redskins logos and such without penalty) opens up for everyone. I don’t see how you can’t feel happy about that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
No it's not. By making this move, the government is making a vary clear statement that it doesn't like this kind of speech and will not protect it. this is the opposite of removing itself.
If the government did want to remove itself from the argument they would have simply said that they are not the judges of what is or is not offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Wait, what? When did not wanting to be involved by refusing to grant a trademark, suddenly turn into 'the opposite of removing itself'?
By not granting the trademark, that is not giving it government approval and backing, they're quite clearly washing their hands of it, and removing themselves from the matter, what happens to the name after that isn't their problem.
If the government did want to remove itself from the argument they would have simply said that they are not the judges of what is or is not offensive.
They are when they're handing out legally enforceable rights based upon 'what is or is not offensive', and in this case they're judging that the term is offensive, and so declaring that they won't be giving it government granted protections.
At no point are they saying 'We find term X offensive, and you must no longer use it' here.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Translation: "We find term X offensive, and we will not protect it".
The government is refusing to offer the protections it offers to millions of other things based only on if the term is offensive or not.
This is like removing legal marriage right to some people based only on the idea the same sex marriage is wrong. Or (in a much more extreme example) it's like removing police protection against murders only for a person who said they didn't like the president. While it would appear that they are removing themselves from the argument, the are most definitely not.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Show me a court ruling that decreed the removal of all civil marriage rights towards any group of people and didn’t eventually get overturned by the Supreme Court (Loving, Windsor, etc).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Two, gay marriage is still illegal in my state and as far as I know still illegal in most states. You can still get married, but the state government will not provide any of the benefits it provides to all other married couples. It will not be seen as a legal marriage. As far as I know, this has not been addressed by the Supreme Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It clearly has rules that say that offensive terms cannot be trademarked. By allowing the trademark to continue in the light of this new scrutiny, the government is affirming that "Redskin" is not offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Yes, it does. SHOULD it have those rules? And should it use those rules to revoke a trademark that it had already granted over 40 years ago?
The purpose of trademark is really to reduce consumer confusion. The main people who will benefit from revoking the registration of this existing trademark are people who want to traffic in counterfeit Redskins goods. I just don't see the logic of "this word is offensive, therefore we should allow counterfeit goods containing this word." It seems to be a non sequitur to me.
Only if it actually rules that the term is not offensive. If it again dismissed the claim as being too old (why didn't anyone oppose the mark when it was being granted, or within a reasonable time after it was granted?) then that is not saying the term is not offensive. (Unless you think the previous dismissal on those grounds meant that the government affirmed that it was not offensive.) Or if it ruled that the offensive term rule was unconstitutional (it probably isn't) that would obviously not be the same as ruling that the term is not offensive.
And let's say the government actually DOES explicitly rule that the term is not offensive. So what? You're allowed to be offended by terms not on an official government list of offensive terms. And I think any impact of "the government" saying it's not offensive is rather reduced when you have half the Senate plus the President already saying that it is.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
See my response to Chrono S. Trigger.
And should it use those rules to revoke a trademark that it had already granted over 40 years ago?
Are you suggesting that, if the government finds it made a mistake, that it should go on making that mistake into perpetuity? That's a strange stance to make.
I just don't see the logic of "this word is offensive, therefore we should allow counterfeit goods containing this word."
Does your outlook change if you rephrase it to: therefore we shouldn't protect it with the rule of law?
Only if it actually rules that the term is not offensive.
No. If a word is trademarked, and there is a rule that no offensive words or phrases can be trademarked, then any trademarked word, in the eyes of the government, is either (a) not offensive or (b) trademarked in error. Since "Redskin" is at least debatably offensive, the government had only one choice: (b).
why didn't anyone oppose the mark when it was being granted, or within a reasonable time after it was granted?
Why does it matter?
And let's say the government actually DOES explicitly rule that the term is not offensive.
I think, by canceling the trademark, the government has already indicated that it *is* offensive-- the appeals process is where they could be proven wrong.
I don't understand the rest of the paragraph containing the quoted sentence above.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
No. What are we really protecting? The word, or the consumer who buys a "Redskins" jacket that then falls apart and he doesn't even know who the real manufacturer is?
You could be wrongfully convicted of a crime because the judge gave the jury improper instructions, but if you try to appeal those instructions ten years later, you're out of luck as far as the appeals court is concerned. If someone defamed you in 1999 and you tried to bring an action now, there's no way that the court would accept the delay. And it works the other way too; the government can't ordinarily prosecute you for a petty theft that happened 20 years ago.
But it could be "(b), but we aren't going to change it because you waited 40 years." Which is what they *actually did* the first time this lawsuit was brought - it was refiled with younger plaintiffs because it was determined that the original, older, plaintiffs should have objected a long time ago if they wanted to object.
I'm not unsympathetic to the argument that the USPTO needs to follow the law as it is written, though. They obviously do. If the law says they need to revoke the trademark, then even if that law is stupid, they need to revoke the trademark. But that still leaves questions like what the criteria is for offensiveness. In the original article, Tim cited a figure of 37% of Native Americans finding the term offensive. That's not even a majority of the group in question, let alone a majority of Americans. Is 37% of one group really enough to revoke a trademark? And the word itself seem rather neutral - if the nickname was something like "Scalpers", that word would bring to mind something rather offensive. But "Redskins"? That's a color and the outer part of the body. It doesn't seem inherently offensive to me.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Those are all examples of events that happened once, not something that's ongoing like a trademark.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
As btr1701 pointed out: "And then there's registered marks 'NewsWhore', 'Bitches Bash', 'Creepy-Ass Cracka', and 'Suck It', all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO."
What makes "Redskins" so much more offensive then "Creepy-Ass Cracka"? "Redskins" is an old term that lost it's sting long ago (Like how "Humbug" was a vary bad swear word long ago). "Cracka" is a current term that is currently said with specific intent to offend.
What is and is not offensive is based on emotion. Emotion should not come into play when making policy. We all know how that can turn ugly fast.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I fail to see how that has any bearing on this specific, real world scenario. They do have that rule, and so, their actions are justified by it.
What makes "Redskins" so much more offensive then "Creepy-Ass Cracka"?
The amount of people complaining about it, and the volume at which they are complaining. Logically speaking, the only way you can really determine if something is offensive is how many people are offended by it, and how offended they are.
Emotion should not come into play when making policy.
..and if we were having a hypothetical question on whether or not this rule should exist, I might agree-- I believe the stance is that, by doing this, the government is "not removing itself", but actually making a statement.
In reality, the government is following the rules it has set for itself. They really had no other option but to remove the trademark protection. That is not a statement of whether the law is good or bad, but a fact.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
We can be having a discussion on whatever we like. Hypothetical, reality, whatever.
It's not an option to say it's too late, you should have objected sometime during the first 30 years the trademark existed?
I think my main problem with this whole situation is that the people suing don't actually care whether there is a piece of paper at the USPTO with a trademark registration on it. They are suing because they want to use any means they can to get the Redskins to change their name. To quote Tim in the original article on this, "So how do we finally get the name changed? As it turns out, the answer just might be trademark law." This isn't a case where a government action may incidentally cause the team to change their name. This is a case where people wanted the name changed and decided to use the power of the government to try to force the change, even though the government does not have the authority to make a football team change their team nickname. I feel that this is a misuse of government power. If this doesn't work they'll try to make the FTC ban Redskins broadcasts. If that doesn't work they'll probably do something else. Zoning denials? Ripping up the freeway that leads to the stadium? Who knows?
If the term was really that offensive, a boycott should work. The little bit they're going to lose to counterfeiters is nothing compared to what they'd lose if people stopped buying the merchandise altogether, stopped going to games, and stopped watching them on TV. If most people are offended then it should be easy to get a large drop in ratings and sales. If a boycott doesn't work, that probably shows that most people aren't really offended enough to care.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
I've heard two different numbers regarding how many people brought this issue up: 5 and 8.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> determine if something is offensive is how many
> people are offended by it, and how offended they are.
Then the fact that the overwhelming majority of Native Americans have no problems with "Redskins" should be the deciding factor.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
who knows, with all the attention, people may perversely decide to buy MORE 'skins crap than ever BECAUSE of the 'ban'...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see that as a reason not to grant them, but isn't it better to say that they're *cancelled* because they are disparaging *now*? Otherwise is it OK to hold a trademark on an offensive term if you registered it before it was considered to be offensive? For example, if you had trademarked the N-word say 50-100 years ago when it was relatively common parlance. This ruling would seem to suggest you can hang on to the trademark.
Presumably the govt can't retrospectively cancel the trademark - as then people who had been sued for infringing on it could then sue "that team" to get their money back which doesn't seem fair since they were acting under the rules in place at the time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I STILL HAVE NOT HEARD a good or reasonable explanation for why *THIS* name is insulting, but the others (Braves, chiefs, etc) are not...
(which reminds me: wasn't their mascot named 'Chief Takhomasak' in coordination with steak-n-shake, or something ? but *that* wasn't an indication the Braves was racist ?)
seems VERY arbitrary to me...
what about long time products like 'Uncle Ben's Rice', i can easily see how that would be offensive to blacks, EVEN THOUGH it isn't like it is 'Old Nigger Rice', it is STILL possible to be offended by historical images of black servants...
hell, what about 'Aunt Jemimah' ? i have NO DOUBT that was a racist image being peddled, NOT an honorific to show how much they respected the ability of blacks to make cane syrup... but *that'* okay ? ? ?
whatever...
lastly, does this mean that ONLY POSITIVE aspects of ANY cohort can be referred to, NEVER anything 'negative' ?
that is bullshit and censorship...
i'll keep asking:
what's in your brain ? ? ?
('cause this is leading to thoughtkrimes as sure as night follows day...)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Wait a minute...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nabisco
I could give a rats ass what they call the team but let's make sure we put up a site somewhere for everyone to list everything that they want banned so that no-one ever gets their feelings hurt. I have yet to see anything anywhere in our constitution that states you have the right to not be offended... though I'm sure an amendment is coming soon.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nabisco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nabisco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nabisco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nabisco
The government said "you don't get government protection of trademark". The government didn't say "you have to change the team name". If the NFL wants the team to keep its name, the team can keep its name - it just can’t go after people for trademark violations.
Now, if that means the team ends up changing its name to something that it can trademark, that's on the NFL and the team, not the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Nabisco
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
We now live in the United Socialist States of America, where Marxism is our philosophy. Really sad, and destructive to what was once a proud country where people could be who they are and not dropped on by the elites in D.C. who seem to think we need them to wipe our assess.
God help anyone who thinks this is a good thing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
In the on-screen words of professional wrestler Wade Barrett…I’M AFRAID I’VE GOT SOME BAD NEWS.
http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/05/30/3443168/redskins-founder-i-didnt-name-team-to-honor- native-americans/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
Oh wait.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
If there were some real sources in that article, then THOSE should have been presented.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
It points to a 1933 interview George Preston Marshall (the Washington team’s original owner and team founder) did with the Associated Press. The article even displays an image of a printout of the interview in question (which comes from the 6 July 1933 edition of the Hartford Courant).
You can also fact check everything else brought up as factual information within the article. Google exists for a reason. Speaking of which, a quick Google search of that news clip's title brought me to an archival search engine for the Courant that has the news clip in question (though you must pay a fee to see it through that archive).
http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/courant/doc/558320984.html?FMT=CITE&FMTS=CITE:AI&type=h istoric&date=Jul+6%2C+1933&author=&pub=The+Hartford+Courant+%281923-1988%29&edition= &startpage=&desc=Boston+Braves+Grid+Men+Become+%27Redskins%27
You can bitch about the source all you want, but that doesn’t refute the facts laid out in the article. Come back when you can do that – and if you can't, don't bother replying because I don’t want to deal with you dishing out a piss-poor joke or insult to get around trying to refute factual information that you can't actually refute.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
Oh wait, that never actually happened.
Because it's not offensive.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Marxism is alive and well in the U.S.S.A.
Did Marxism include something about not using racial slurs? I don't remember that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You mean a racist nature, not a racial nature, right? Otherwise there would be a LOT of groups losing trademark registrations.
I KNOW you know what a chilling effect is, and it's disingenuous to pretend that a chilling effect isn't both present and intended here. Certainly you don't actually WANT more people to use the term.
So what are those "serious arguments"? It's not simply that the term is used - you said yourself that you wouldn't care for a world where speech deemed offensive can't be uttered, and that this can't actually stop them from using the term anyway. It's not that you really care about exclusivity, either; you'd certainly not like it if this ruling resulted in the Washington Nationals and the Washington Wizards also changing their name to Redskins. I assume, then, that your reasons are stated here:
But it's a just a registration. It's not "government approval" in any meaningful way. The only rights it grants are the same rights granted to every other professional sports team in America. As I've previously said, if the government allows the Whig party to trademark their name that does not mean the government is endorsing the Whigs, or political parties in general, or words that start with W. And the government would not even blink at registering the copyright for a book which contained every racist term imaginable, nor should they. If the government approves the zoning for the local KKK office that doesn't mean that the government endorses the activities of the KKK - and indeed, they would likely get sued if they tried denying the zoning based on the racist nature of the group. So why is trademark so different?
And of course I have to close with this quote:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
> "government approval" in any meaningful way.
Every time this issue comes up, Tim tries to make the case that the government's acceptance of a trademark registration somehow equates to them approving of it (or "sanctifying" it, as I believe he's said in the past).
Nothing could be further from the truth. Not anymore than a city's grant of a business license to a porn store is equivalent to a government endorsement of porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This argument doesn't particularly impress me seeing as I rather suspect you'd say the same thing if trademarks and the trademark system were abolished entirely.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Have T Shirts and Jerseys printed up with the RedSkins Logo on them (minus player names and the NFL logo)
Sell them on the streets for 1/3 the cost of the originals
Retire to a nice quiet beach in the Caribbean
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I used to be neutral on this subject
I was working as an EMT at the time and was part of the search team that was looking for this woman, and one of whom who found her body... I dont give a fuck what argument people put forward, its all bullshit...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I used to be neutral on this subject
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
30% consider it to be a slur
Is it tribal? (IE some tribes yes, some no)
Is it political? (IE liberals yes, conservatives no)
Is it economic? (IE poor yes, rich no)
is it pole-graphic? (IE pushpoll yes, neutral poll no)
You say it doesn't matter? I say nay! Details matter!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
To (mis-)quote Gene Wilder...
To begin, I challenge you here and how to name ONE person who has taken offense at the name, or does so. Name, home address, other personally identifying information so I can speak to them and get it 'from the horse's mouth'.
If the moniker of this team IS racist now, it WAS racist then, and should not have been approved. The name was approved, and that was in the late 1920's or early 1930's. Eighty-odd years ago, now. Surely, 80 years' history is sufficient to invoke equities involving regular and common usage. (The technical terms escape at the moment - when something has been in regular use and has been accepted for long enough that it is considered by courts to be 'official'.)
More to the point, this could have a chilling effect on future business decisions entirely unrelated to this football franchise: business owners could well become reticent to name their business or product, or place (or whatever else) for fear of potential loss of copyright/trademark protection in 80 years, owing to changes in social norms.
Furthermore, the government has no business poking its long nose into this matter; it's one for the public to vote on by either spending or not spending money to watch the team play.
Ipso facto, res ipsa loquitor, ad infinitum, ad nauseum, etc., etc.; it's all there in black and white.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Black Man® scrub brushes
http://www.bangkokpost.com/print/295230/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Black Man® scrub brushes
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-_oSUEpal_Sc/Tu4ZAzoHDmI/AAAAAAAAC4w/tbnykizRNV0/s1600/darkie%2Btoothp aste.jpg
Maybe that's the sort of thing the Washington Redskins will eventually do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
America?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Neshaminy administrators confiscate newspapers printed by student editors without principal's approval
PENNSYLVANIA — Neshaminy High School administrators confiscated the student newspaper’s final issue of the year Friday, after students printed the paper without administrative approval following renewed disagreement over the students’ ban on the word “Redskins.”
http://www.splc.org/news/newsflash.asp?id=2735
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They lost in 1999, what has changed since then? Why is this being brought up now? Is it because they want people focused on this and not other things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
They won the appeal on an issue of statue of limitations in 2003 and finally won the whole shebang when SCOTUS refused to hear the case in 2009.
So yeah, took 'em a decade, but they did win. I imagine this new case might take just as long to sift through the courts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hard as it may be, let's ignore Obama and the ever-tedious Coke/Pepsi debate for the moment. Whatever actions or motivations taken by USPTO, the Obama administration et al., for good or for ill, are motivated by politics and self-interest. This would be true of any bureaucrat or politician; no matter what side they take and no matter their justifications, I think we can all safely agree that career-based self-interest is a large part of it.
For the average American spectator - and for the commentators here and elsewhere - that motivation does not (or should not) exist. On the individual level, for those of us non-natives who don't have careers or billions of dollars riding on this issue, the decision-making process seems pretty straightforward. Either:
1. Err on the side of common-courtesy and historical sensitivity, acknowledging that while not all natives find the names offensive - and irrespective of the contested historical origins of the term - it's simply not worth the risk of rubbing salt in the centuries-long wounds of those who are offended by it, all for the sake of a stupid corporate sports logo. You know, just as a courtesy, as modern 21st century men and women who (should) no longer have any incentive in trivializing the grievances of indigenous peoples.
2. Expend lots of time and energy defending a billionaire's callousness towards the feelings of others, operating under the bizarre notion that NFL team names are some sort of sacrosanct pillar of our society that must be defended at all costs.
3. Screw those corn-eating bastards anyway, I refuse to be held accountable for my refusal to empathize with others.
Ignoring the pointless politics and willful misinterpretations of the First Amendment, the American public is being given an opportunity to show that we have grown up and matured since the Manifest Destiny days, and that maybe we're finally willing to put the feelings of our indigenous neighbors above the marketing priorities of our big business apparatus. Many in this thread are left wanting in this respect.
Almost none of the chest-thumping freedom-warriors in this thread would walk onto a reservation and start calling the inhabitants "redskins" to their face, those who insist that they would tend to be so socially maladjusted as to never worry about finding themselves in such a situation. This disinclination towards doing so is not because of some nefarious political correctness Illuminati; it's just something that adults do as a consequence of being an adult.
Adults don't scramble for questionable surveys trying to justify their foot-in-mouthness using statistics of all things. Adults don't try to argue historical semantics. Adults don't jump to specious analogies that inadvertently imply that the life of the average white North American is comparable to the life of the average native. Adults don't consider "but we've always done so" to be a valid justification, nor do they treat the names of sports teams with such reverence and defensiveness.
Maybe only half of natives find the name offensive. Maybe only a third. Maybe only a handful. Whatever the truth, my question is: why do you consider the feelings of Daniel Snyder and an inanimate corporate logo caricature to be more worthy of your outrage than the continued dehumanization of a broken and defeated people?
(Keeping in mind that Mr. Snyder will not be thanking you for defending his business interest for free)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I think you're overestimating a great number of adults (or redefining the term).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Actually, it makes no sense at all. Now, if we were talking about changing the logo to a football (which has a reddish brown 'skin'), then that would make sense, but changing a decades old name because a vocal minority got butthurt? I don't think so.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Snyder
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Protecting inmates from other inmates is not a "privilege" that is granted by the government. It is the legal responsibility of the government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You print up Jersey's with logo, what more do you need? Leave off the NFL logo and the name of the player, you are golden.
Of course, everything is still in place pending appeal, and in fact, the Redskins will win.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
"The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled six federal trademark registrations for the name of the Washington Redskins"
Do you have a citation demonstrating the trademark on the logo was revoked?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Figured it out
Everyone thinks 'racist' means 'derogatory to a specific race'.
Except people who think the name should be changed. They think 'racist' means 'referring to a specific race'. Because that would be correct.
Why yes, they do have red skin. And that guy has yellow skin, he has white skin, and she has black skin. Are we supposed to care?
And if you do care? You're the racist. You are literally making an argument on the basis of race.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Figured it out
No, they don't. They believe the term is derogatory, and you do not. That is the difference of opinion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]