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to something more civil, you might think that I'm doing some kind of happy dance in my office now that the USPTO has rescinded the trademark registration for the team (something I had predicted, along with others, a while back).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.

Filed Under: dan snyder, free speech, redskins, trademark, uspto, washington redskins
Companies: washington redskins

Washington Redskins Fail The Twitter Test With Football Fans And Followers

from the oops dept

There's an old saying in the legal industry that's supposedly hammered into law school students: never ask a question to which you don't already know the answer. That idiom can probably also be applied to corporations and their forays into social media: never start an online campaign or contest unless you know what the reaction of your audience is going to be. And, if a Mike Masnick can earn fame on the coinage of a term like "the Streisand Effect", then perhaps I too can find myself a Wikipedia mention by coining what happened in the following story as "the Redskin Botch."

Whatever you think of the debate over the name of the Washinton NFL team, let's put that aside for the moment and focus on the complete failure of whoever is managing the Redskins' Twitter account to anticipate the reaction to their latest call to arms. Like any mildly amusing story, it all starts with Harry Reid, who whipped up fifty senators to sign a letter to the NFL stating that it was time the Washington team changed its name. In response, the team's Twitter account put out the call for fans to tweet Reid explaining why the team's name apparently means so much to them, for some reason.

Tweet @SenatorReid to show your #RedskinsPride and tell him what the team means to you. — Washington Redskins (@Redskins) May 29, 2014

The tweet, the call, and the hashtag got more attention that the team could have hoped for, and caused a larger backlash than the team could have feared. Fans of the team or not, the response was the exact opposite of the team's intention, with the overwhelming majority of respondents favoring the name change and offering their support to Reid, not the team. Some wonderfull highlights include:

#RacialSlurPride RT @Redskins: Tweet @SenatorReid to show your #RedskinsPride and tell him what the team means to you. — Jamil Smith (@JamilSmith) May 29, 2014

Hey @Redskins and @HarryReid! To me #redskinspride is about normalizing overt racism in the 21st century. Did I do this right @Redskins ? — Bart Johnston (@MBJohnston12) May 29, 2014

#RedskinsPride because keeping the tshirt in my closet accurate is much more important than whole races of people — bd (@IHatebd) May 29, 2014

A really poor grasp of social media marketing? RT @Redskins: Tweet @SenatorReid to show #RedskinsPride & tell him what the team means to you — Hugh C. McBride (@hughcmcbride) May 29, 2014

As the post notes, even fans of the team reacted similarly, indicating that the last example I offered is perhaps the entire point. A failure to understand what reaction you're going to get when you start a social media campaign is the Redskins Botch. And the failure wasn't lost on the intended target, with Reid's office commenting:

"The Skins tried to engage folks, and it has failed miserably," Faiz Shakir, Reid's digital director, told us. In the minutes after the Skins' tweet, Shakir said "we haven't found more than one or two that are actually supportive."

A wonderful failure all around and it couldn't have happened to better people, as far as I'm concerned.

Filed Under: redskin botch, redskins, social media, twitter, washington redskins

Washington Redskins Trying To Silence Beat Reporters On Social Media

from the that's-no-how-this-works dept

We've talked a few times about issues with various sports leagues and teams trying to control what beat reporters can report about, including some pretty serious limitations on basic reporting. The rise of things like Twitter has only made this a bigger issue, with some media entities and sports leagues trying to limit the ability of reporters to make use of Twitter to actually connect with their readership and community.

The latest appears to be the Washington Redskins -- a team that has quite a history of controlling behavior when it comes to fans and reporters. This is the team that sued over 100 fans who couldn't afford to pay for their season tickets when the economy went south (most other teams worked out deals or just took the tickets back -- the Redskins took their fans to court). The team also threatened to revoke the press credentials of a Washington Post reporter who took photos of disgruntled fans protesting team actions.

So, really, I guess it shouldn't come as any surprise that the team is now trying to massively restrict how reporters make use of Twitter and blogs, as the team is trying to ban them from saying anything about practice sessions. The team is so controlling that part of the "media guidelines" it gave reporters includes an attempt to tell them what they can do:

"Media does have the right to report what they are told by coaches or players." (emphasis in the original)

It's as if they feel like they're giving reporters permission to... um... do their jobs. Apparently, the team also met with reporters where it was suggested that the media wouldn't even be allowed to ask players about what happened at practice.

Now, of course, there's no legal issue here. The team controls access and can deny or revoke a press pass to whomever they want, but it seems like a really short-sighted move. In an attempt to overly control the press, they end up making it that much more difficult for fans to really connect. For many fans, the press is their main connection to a sports team, so the team should be encouraging greater communities built up around those beat reporters. It makes fans more loyal and more interested in the team. At some point, teams are going to need to realize that reporters are effectively giving them free advertising, and they should stop trying to control every bit of it, or some publications might decide to back off on covering the team at all...

Below is an image of the first page of the new media "rules" care of TBD.com:

Filed Under: journalism, social media, washington redskins