The U.S. Patent office canceled the Washington Redskins' trademark registration.

[molson]

The U.S. Patent office canceled the Washington Redskins' trademark registration. There will be appeals, and I'm not sure what the direct impact of this will be (apparently it gives other entities some ability to use the name and the logo on their own merchandise - not FULL ability I don't think, because there's still copyright law - but this just makes fighting those legal battles more expensive.) But indirectly, now that the federal government has weighed in and deemed the name racist, you would think that would be a big step towards a name change. How long will Snyder fight this?

U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?hpid=z1)

[Galaxy]

The U.S. Patent office canceled the Washington Redskins' trademark registration. There will be appeals, and I'm not sure what the direct impact of this will be (apparently it gives other entities some ability to use the name and the logo on their own merchandise - not FULL ability I don't think, because there's still copyright law - but this just makes fighting those legal battles more expensive.) But indirectly, now that the federal government has weighed in and deemed the name racist, you would think that would be a big step towards a name change. How long will Snyder fight this?

U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging - The Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html?hpid=z1)

So many things that bug me about this...but I don't want to turn this thread in a political thread.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

So what, the U.S. Patent office can just give a patent and then take it back after giving it to the team?

[molson]

So what, the U.S. Patent office can just give a patent and then take it back after giving it to the team?

If someone else challenges the patent and they can establish standing, they can.

The Native Americans who filed this had lost on the standing issue in a previous case. I haven't read the case to figure out how they were able to show standing here.

Edit: And this is a trademark registration rather than a patent. Registering a trademark really doesn't give you any additional rights, it just makes your ownership of the intellectual property super-clear and obvious, making it easier to defend it from infringement, gives you legal presumptions of ownership, and it opens doors to international trademark rights in other countries. So if someone gets a trademark registered but you had been using it for years and years, you would be able to challenge that registration. That would be an obvious showing of standing, here, that issue is a lot more interesting.

[Ben E Lou]

New thread.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Hopefully this foolishness gets overturned on appeal. Otherwise, the insanity will simply continue.

[Lathum]

I haven't read into this much as I am at work, but it seems like a pretty slippery slope for the patent office to do this, seems like it is setting a dangerous precedent and severly overstepping boundries.

[RainMaker]

The whole thing is dumb and it's a shame the US Patent Office is chiming in. It does seem inevitable that they will be changing their name though.

[Subby]

From the WaPo story (http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html):
Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”
Pretty simple, the name Redskin has, historically, been an offensive or derogatory name for native americans. Therefore, according to federal trademark law, it cannot be a registered trademark.

Probably not the end of the day for the 'Skins name, because I could see Snyder digging in his heels and going full-on martyr here (I don't care about the money! That's how much I love the name!)

[cougarfreak]

So, will they take the Columbia out of D.C. since Columbus was such a bad dude too?

[Ben E Lou]

Probably not the end of the day for the 'Skins name, because I could see Snyder digging in his heels and going full-on martyr here (I don't care about the money! That's how much I love the name!)Not to mention all of the "clever" official-looking stuff bearing the name "Redskins" that will be available all over the place. A significant portion of the fanbase will eat up the martyr status and essentially double down on the name, I would guess.

[Logan]

If someone else challenges the patent and they can establish standing, they can.

The Native Americans who filed this had lost on the standing issue in a previous case. I haven't read the case to figure out how they were able to show standing here.

Edit: And this is a trademark registration rather than a patent. Registering a trademark really doesn't give you any additional rights, it just makes your ownership of the intellectual property super-clear and obvious, making it easier to defend it from infringement, gives you legal presumptions of ownership, and it opens doors to international trademark rights in other countries. So if someone gets a trademark registered but you had been using it for years and years, you would be able to challenge that registration. That would be an obvious showing of standing, here, that issue is a lot more interesting.

I think RD3 was making a joke if you consider the context (and offensive wording), to which I say "Bravo" as a Seinfeld fan.

[Subby]

So, will they take the Columbia out of D.C. since Columbus was such a bad dude too?
I don't know - is it a registered trademark?

[Logan]

I haven't read into this much as I am at work, but it seems like a pretty slippery slope for the patent office to do this, seems like it is setting a dangerous precedent and severly overstepping boundries.

I'm pretty sure the Patent office has been rejecting trademarks on similar names that aren't directly attributable to the Redskins for years now, on the same basis. Heading out to a meeting soon and if no one else provides a link, I'll try and dig one up when I get back.

[cougarfreak]

I don't know - is it a registered trademark?

The Federal Government certainly honors him by naming the district after him. Why let that stand if you can't have a trademark name like Redskin?

[Subby]

The Federal Government certainly honors him by naming the district after him. Why let that stand if you can't have a trademark name like Redskin?
I have no idea what you are talking about right now. This isn't about anything other than the name Redskins losing trademark protection because the USPTO deems it as a term that is seen as disparaging to a group of people.

Not sure how your #hottake makes sense when we aren't talking about a registered trademark OR a term that is used to disparage a group of people.

Columbia in "District of Columbia" is neither.

[Logan]

The Native Americans who filed this had lost on the standing issue in a previous case. I haven't read the case to figure out how they were able to show standing here.

Here's a quick synopsis I pulled off another football board I read. Bolded is my own:

Reading up on the history of the lawsuits, it appears what happens is that a large group brought the suit in 1992, and it took 7 years for the court to issue a decision. The court decided in 1999 that "redskins" was a slur and therefore not a valid trademark. Washington appealed, and a higher court determined that the group that brought the suit did not have legal standing to do so. The group then argued that the youngest member of the group did, in fact, have legal standing. That battle went on until 2008, when the court determined that even the youngest member alone did not have legal standing. They challenged that decision, and in November 2009, the Supreme Court declined to take on the challenge. The group then spent two and a half years rebuilding the case and gathering younger plaintiffs who clearly did have standing, and brought a new suit in 2012. That's the suit that was decided today, two years later.

So yes, courts ruled in 1999 that the name was a slur, but the trademark hasn't been pulled because both sides are still arguing over whether they have the legal standing to challenge it.

[Butter]

I have no idea what you are talking about right now. This isn't about anything other than the name Redskins losing trademark protection because the USPTO deems it as a term that is seen as disparaging to a group of people.

Not sure how your #hottake makes sense when we aren't talking about a registered trademark OR a term that is used to disparage a group of people.

Columbia in "District of Columbia" is neither.

Maybe if it was called the "District of the Dago Explorer" he might have a point here.

[Drake]

Don't even know what the fuck we're going to do about "Indiana", which constitutes (at the very least) some form of false advertising.

[molson]

I have no idea what you are talking about right now. This isn't about anything other than the name Redskins losing trademark protection because the USPTO deems it as a term that is seen as disparaging to a group of people.

Not sure how your #hottake makes sense when we aren't talking about a registered trademark OR a term that is used to disparage a group of people.

Columbia in "District of Columbia" is neither.

That's all true, and even if we want to talk about the moral aspect of this, "Columbia" is not a racial slur. A better comparison, again just on the offensiveness/moral angle of this, would be the U.S. changing the names of "Nigger Bill Canyon", "Nigger Hollow", "Niggertown Marsh", and the dozens or hundreds of other places that used to be called similar things.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigger#Place_names

I hate the name and think the Snyder should change it, or the NFL should do whatever they can to force a change, but I'm not sold on standing in terms of the legal issues in this case, even for younger plaintiffs. Being offended doesn't typically demonstrate standing, it still boils down to that, even with younger plaintiffs who were born after a term was formally identified as a racial slur, unless I'm missing something.

[Qwikshot]

Don't even know what the fuck we're going to do about "Indiana", which constitutes (at the very least) some form of false advertising.

I didn't know Indians was a slur but I know something that is.

[BillJasper]

I applaud the US Patent Office for having the balls to pull the trademark.

Though I simply don't understand the hesitation to change the name? They'll be raking in cash as fans gobble up the old stuff before it's gone and then buying up merchandise with the new logo/name.

Seems like a win/win.

[Qwikshot]

I applaud the US Patent Office for having the balls to pull the trademark.

Though I simply don't understand the hesitation to change the name? They'll be raking in cash as fans gobble up the old stuff before it's gone and then buying up merchandise with the new logo/name.

Seems like a win/win.

I concur

[Drake]

I didn't know Indians was a slur but I know something that is.

I consider it a slur in the same way that I'd be offended if someone determined that I was Irish when I'm not...then kept calling me that until it became my default ethnicity.

(But I was really being facetious anyway. I'm pretty sure we've got more actual India Indians here than Native American Indians, so if we lump them together, it's probably okay.)

[panerd]

As one of the board's bigger anti-federal government posters you would think this would bother me a lot. I actually put it pretty low on my list of things that bother me and am kind of happy that they might actually get rid of a team name that is pretty absurdly offensive. Just wish people would be more skeptical and interested in the more egregious stuff our federal government does and gets away with.

[NobodyHere]

So, will they take the Columbia out of D.C. since Columbus was such a bad dude too?

I don't think anyone wants to open that can of worms.

After all wouldn't you then have to ban anything named after George Washington and Thomas Jefferson? After all they weren't very kind to black people.

How about Franklin Roosevelt and his treatment of Asian Americans?

[rowech]

The politicians involved in this aren't missing a beat. The term is offensive but Snyder isn't going to change it. I don't understand why it's just not written that when Snyder dies or when he sells the team, the team name must be changed. Seems like the easiest solution.

[NobodyHere]

Who exactly would write that the team name must be changed?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Best line I've seen so far, via @AlbertBrooks (via an RT from @ScottIan)

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Redskins owner loses trademark protection but is still defiant. Says, &quot;you'll have to Sioux me&quot;</p>&mdash; Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) <a href="https://twitter.com/AlbertBrooks/statuses/479304971687829504">June 18, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Galaxy]

The politicians involved in this aren't missing a beat. The term is offensive but Snyder isn't going to change it. I don't understand why it's just not written that when Snyder dies or when he sells the team, the team name must be changed. Seems like the easiest solution.

Would this even be constitutional?

[rowech]

Who exactly would write that the team name must be changed?

The NFL.

[Suicane75]

Are there any recordings of Dan Snyder saying something like "these Redskins are horrible"? Maybe then we can force him to sell the team.

[stevew]

Are there any recordings of Dan Snyder saying something like "these Redskins are horrible"? Maybe then we can force him to sell the team.

" Don't bring Aziz Ansari to my games!"

[molson]

I think RD3 was making a joke if you consider the context (and offensive wording), to which I say "Bravo" as a Seinfeld fan.

I just got the joke. I'm a little slow.

[Galaxy]

As one of the board's bigger anti-federal government posters you would think this would bother me a lot. I actually put it pretty low on my list of things that bother me and am kind of happy that they might actually get rid of a team name that is pretty absurdly offensive. Just wish people would be more skeptical and interested in the more egregious stuff our federal government does and gets away with.

This ruling just shows me how PC and overly sensitive we are getting. A nanny state is something I don't want to live in.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Palefaces very worked up about this one.

[JPhillips]

So small government types are angry that the government refuses to protect a private company's exclusive rights to a name/logo?

[Izulde]

This is a clear-cut case of a racist name, IMO, and I'm not PC.

For those of you bitching about this, though, you should be even angrier about the NCAA's 2005 rules change that required all universities with Native American names and/or mascots to change them or be banned from postseason play, unless they appealed for and were given an exemption (Florida State being one that got an exemption).

[Logan]

This ruling just shows me how PC and overly sensitive we are getting. A nanny state is something I don't want to live in.

So if trying to get "Redskins" out shows "how PC" we are, please explain what level of PC-ness you would find acceptable.

[ISiddiqui]

I applaud the US Patent Office for having the balls to pull the trademark.

Though I simply don't understand the hesitation to change the name? They'll be raking in cash as fans gobble up the old stuff before it's gone and then buying up merchandise with the new logo/name.

Seems like a win/win.

Indeed.

And I fully agree with the US Patent Office. As Izulde said, "This is a clear-cut case of a racist name" and according to trademark law in the US, you can't trademark a racist name (due to its disparagement of that racial group).

[CU Tiger]

I guess I am just dense.
I dont think Redksin is offensive.
I dont think calling someone black is offensive.
Neither is calling someone white.

Court case aside, what is my dense brain missing that makes red-skin offensive? Native Americans had a redish hue to their skin color. Sure their skin wasnt fire engine red, no more than my skin is white or even olive colored....its a damn adjective, albeit a poor one, I just dont get it.

If they were the Ragin Injuns, or the Drunk Injuns...I'd see it.
But I just dont see redskin as offensive.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

So you think nicknames based on physical characteristics should have the go ahead, but not ones based on stereotypical behavior?

[Logan]

Yeah you're dense.

[JonInMiddleGA]

For those of you bitching about this, though, you should be even angrier about the NCAA's 2005 rules change that required all universities with Native American names and/or mascots to change them or be banned from postseason play, unless they appealed for and were given an exemption (Florida State being one that got an exemption).

I was, and remain so.

The NCAA is not, however, a governmental or even quasi-governmental body. Institutions that were victimized by their ridiculous ruling did have the option of leaving the group.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I guess I am just dense.

Nah. You've just got common sense & aren't running around looking for something to be offended by (or willing to buy into every whiny ass group that decides it's offended by whatever).

[Logan]

I was, and remain so.

The NCAA is not, however, a governmental or even quasi-governmental body. Institutions that were victimized by their ridiculous ruling did have the option of leaving the group.

And the NFL team can still use it as a team name, they just aren't being afforded trademark protection anymore.

[molson]

So you think nicknames based on physical characteristics should have the go ahead, but not ones based on stereotypical behavior?

The South Carolina Darkies has a nice ring to it.

[ISiddiqui]

And the NFL team can still use it as a team name, they just aren't being afforded trademark protection anymore.

Indeed, according to what the law demands. Why don't these people want the government to follow the law?

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

The South Carolina Darkies has a nice ring to it.

Not to mention what negro turned into.

[Logan]

Nah. You've just got common sense & aren't running around looking for something to be offended by (or willing to buy into every whiny ass group that decides it's offended by whatever).

God bless those three Bush-appointed judges who ruled on this case.

[NobodyHere]

God bless those three Bush-appointed judges who ruled on this case.

OMG when will you libtards stop blaming everything on Bush. Obama's been in office for 200 years now!

/sarcasm

[sabotai]

I guess I am just dense.
I dont think Redksin is offensive.
I dont think calling someone black is offensive.
Neither is calling someone white.

It use to be used as a descriptor like "white" and "black", but many words that become racial slurs don't start out that way. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, the word started to be used to popularize stereotyping of Native Americans. Such as the book "Redskin Rimes", which is filled with racist songs, poems, etc. There was also the Tom and Jerry cartoon "Redskin Blues" which contained a stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. From these and others, the word "redskin" became synonymous with a portrayal of Native Americans as drunk, lazy and stupid. It was the same evolution of a word that you see with other racial slurs like "kike" or "gook". They didn't start out as racial slurs either.

[Galaxy]

So small government types are angry that the government refuses to protect a private company's exclusive rights to a name/logo?

Weird thought process.

[ISiddiqui]

It use to be used as a descriptor like "white" and "black", but many words that become racial slurs don't start out that way. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, the word started to be used to popularize stereotyping of Native Americans. Such as the book "Redskin Rimes", which is filled with racist songs, poems, etc. There was also the Tom and Jerry cartoon "Redskin Blues" which contained a stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. From these and others, the word "redskin" became synonymous with a portrayal of Native Americans as drunk, lazy and stupid. It was the same evolution of a word that you see with other racial slurs like "kike" or "gook". They didn't start out as racial slurs either.

Or "nigger" for that matter. The term started out as a descriptor.

[Galaxy]

So if trying to get "Redskins" out shows "how PC" we are, please explain what level of PC-ness you would find acceptable.

People who go around getting my panties in a bunch over everything are the worst. Our dysfunction and sliding quality-of-life in our country is due to these reasons. It's a slippery slope...should Notre Dame give up it's Fighting Irish nickname? Do you find the Chicago Blackhawks' logo/nickname offensive? What about when the University of Hawai'i dropped the Rainbow Warriors name and logl? You could go on and on.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Our dysfunction and sliding quality-of-life is due to people being oversensitive?

[Subby]

People who go around getting my panties in a bunch over everything are the worst. Our dysfunction and sliding quality-of-life in our country is due to these reasons.
Ours? Maybe yours. I think you may be getting your panties in a bunch, mister!

[cartman]

Our dysfunction and sliding quality-of-life is due to people being oversensitive?

It's a dogwhistle for "teh libruls are destroying everything that made this country grate"

[Logan]

People who go around getting my panties in a bunch over everything are the worst. Our dysfunction and sliding quality-of-life in our country is due to these reasons. It's a slippery slope...should Notre Dame give up it's Fighting Irish nickname? Do you find the Chicago Blackhawks' logo/nickname offensive? What about when the University of Hawai'i dropped the Rainbow Warriors name and logl? You could go on and on.

Notre Dame being an Irish school giving themselves that name certainly changes the picture. If Rutgers decided to call themselves the "Fighting Micks" and had a logo depicting a drunk, stumbling, hands-cocked leprechaun, yeah I'd find that offensive and think it should be changed.

Not sure about the Blackhawks' logo. I don't particularly find it offensive and I'm not sure if Native Americans find it offensive. It's certainly much better than this one (http://content.sportslogos.net/logos/1/7/full/6693.gif) which they had the foresight to ditch in 1937. I think it's a much better logo than the Cleveland Indians. I also think if Chicago's hockey team was named the "Blackskins" it would have gone away 30 years ago.

[sabotai]

I find it funny that conservatives (maybe not Galaxy specifically, I don't know his stance on this) complain so much about political correctness, but so much as drop the f-bomb or show a nipple on network TV and their whole world blows the fuck up.

[Izulde]

TBF, the Cleveland Indians have very quietly phased out Chief Wahoo over the last several years - it just hasn't gotten much in the way of media attention.

[JPhillips]

Weird thought process.

You're mad at the government when all the government did was refuse protect the exclusive rights of a corporation. They didn't ban the name or stop the team from using it in any way.

[DaddyTorgo]

This ruling just shows me how PC and overly sensitive we are getting. A nanny state is something I don't want to live in.

You're free to move then - nobody's holding you hostage.

[Galaxy]

You're free to move then - nobody's holding you hostage.

Thanks. ;)

[Galaxy]

I find it funny that conservatives (maybe not Galaxy specifically, I don't know his stance on this) complain so much about political correctness, but so much as drop the f-bomb or show a nipple on network TV and their whole world blows the fuck up.

No disagreements here.

[DaddyTorgo]

Thanks. ;)

;)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Even Howard Stern, who is an expert on the subject, thinks it is offensive (http://msn.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/howard-stern-rips-daniel-snyder-061814)

[Galaxy]

Ours? Maybe yours. I think you may be getting your panties in a bunch, mister!

I go commando. :cool:

[Galaxy]

Even Howard Stern, who is an expert on the subject, thinks it is offensive (http://msn.foxsports.com/buzzer/story/howard-stern-rips-daniel-snyder-061814)

Here's an interesting article from the Native American prospective.

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/)

[Desnudo]

This ruling just shows me how PC and overly sensitive we are getting. A nanny state is something I don't want to live in.

If the Redskins losing a lawsuit is the straw, then good luck finding your new, non-PC home. I hear Bolivia is pretty backwards if you want a starting point in your search. Moscow airport is another option.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Here's an interesting article from the Native American prospective.

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/)

I don't think that article gave the perspective you were hoping for.

[OldGiants]

An attorney friend pointed out to me that the ruling only applies to the word "Redskins" not to any of the logos or uniforms since the word is not used on any of those.

[RainMaker]

Here's an interesting article from the Native American prospective.

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/)

The whole thing is white people getting offended on behalf of Native Americans.

[Izulde]

Here's an interesting article from the Native American prospective.

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC (http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/)

As the article indicates, there's major issues with the surveys that renders their results suspect at best. So it doesn't really support your position at all, though nice try and all that.

[bhlloy]

The whole thing is white people getting offended on behalf of Native Americans.

And then other white people claiming to be Native Americans not being offended by it, if you read the article at all

[Abe Sargent]

I think this argument is very, very simple at its base to me.

1). No one should ever force the owner of a company to change its name. He owns it. Period. End of discussion. No leaning, or anything else by the government. Leave it to the private citizens to vote with their money

2). No business owner, ever, should want a business who's name honestly offends others, especially over racist things. It doesn't matter if just some of the people are offended, or if it wasn;t meant that way, or if the word is often not used pejoratively, and so forth. All that matters is that some people find it offensive. In a language as diverse and beautiful as English, surely the business owner can find another name that is just as pictorial of the elements he wants to portray.


And when you have a business owner who is not willing to do #2, then vote with your money. Boycott. And if enough people agree with you to hurt the bottom line, change ensues. That is the American way. Not the haranguing which has been going on for months now, which is just likely making Dan even less likely to make change.

[Abe Sargent]

Or I suppose you could just change your name to the Washington Village people and then just have an Indian come out and dance as one of the five or six people in teh band.

[Blackadar]

No one should ever force the owner of a company to change its name. He owns it. Period. End of discussion. No leaning, or anything else by the government.

And no one has. Snyder doesn't have to change the name of the team. He just can't trademark an offensive term, which is and has been the law.

[dacman]

Don't even know what the fuck we're going to do about "Indiana", which constitutes (at the very least) some form of false advertising.

We've got "Hoosiers", "Boilermakers", and "Fighting Irish" and you're wondering about the name Indiana? :confused:

[Alf]

Or I suppose you could just change your name to the Washington Village people and then just have an Indian come out and dance as one of the five or six people in teh band.

:lol:

[Young Drachma]

I used to be in camp "vote with your money" too, but there are people who think that's a legit strategy for banning certain groups from restaurants and neighborhoods too. I think people are voting with their voices and saying "we can't make you change the name, but we can sure as hell pressure you to change it because we don't like it,"

and so, that's as free-speechy as all of the folks who say they don't have a problem with it and go murrica and such.

[Autumn]

I think the main takeaway is that a lot of people don't think of redskins as a racial slur, mostly because Native Americans are now such a cultural minority that to many it packs as much punch as "cracker". Because racism towards African-Americans is still so alive and visible, we can understand why you would never call a sports team Darkies or Niggers, but Redskins just seems anachronistic or hokey.

Where people then go wrong, and where people go wrong in most of these sort of debates, is assuming that since it doesn't seem offensive to them it's not offensive. When we hear something that seems unoffensive to us, but we're being told is offensive to someone else, I wish our response (instead of going "oh my god, so PC!") would be to say, "Huh, it doesn't seem offensive to me. But I'll take your word for it." Then we can ask for more information.

It's not going to kill the great country of America to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt and be open to hearing how they feel before you run to the straw polls and strawmen and any other argument you can find. If someone's making a case that something is offensive there's a good chance someone has been offended, and our job is to find out why, not instantly toss it out. It's the same exact thing i tell my 10 year old nearly every week. "Just because it didn't seem bothersome to you doesn't mean it didn't to your brother. When he's upset, it's his perspective that matters, not yours."

[BillJasper]

I think the main takeaway is that a lot of people don't think of redskins as a racial slur, mostly because Native Americans are now such a cultural minority that to many it packs as much punch as "cracker". Because racism towards African-Americans is still so alive and visible, we can understand why you would never call a sports team Darkies or Niggers, but Redskins just seems anachronistic or hokey.

Where people then go wrong, and where people go wrong in most of these sort of debates, is assuming that since it doesn't seem offensive to them it's not offensive. When we hear something that seems unoffensive to us, but we're being told is offensive to someone else, I wish our response (instead of going "oh my god, so PC!") would be to say, "Huh, it doesn't seem offensive to me. But I'll take your word for it." Then we can ask for more information.

It's not going to kill the great country of America to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt and be open to hearing how they feel before you run to the straw polls and strawmen and any other argument you can find. If someone's making a case that something is offensive there's a good chance someone has been offended, and our job is to find out why, not instantly toss it out. It's the same exact thing i tell my 10 year old nearly every week. "Just because it didn't seem bothersome to you doesn't mean it didn't to your brother. When he's upset, it's his perspective that matters, not yours."

+1

It does seem funny people complaining about a corporation that takes tax dollars being forced to comply with government rules.

[JonInMiddleGA]

It's not going to kill the great country of America to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt and be open to hearing how they feel

That seems to rely on the assumption that we care.

Truth is a great number of us really don't, generally speaking.

[DaddyTorgo]

I think this argument is very, very simple at its base to me.

1). No one should ever force the owner of a company to change its name. He owns it. Period. End of discussion. No leaning, or anything else by the government. Leave it to the private citizens to vote with their money


Notwithstanding the rest of your point I disagree with #1. Public order and common decency should lead you to find a number of offensive names that ought to be prohibited, no matter whether people will vote with their money or not.

Think Hitler. Think racial slurs.

Now one can argue whether an owner would be smart to name their business that or not, but I'd argue that the government, in the guise of maintaining public order (and avoiding lawsuits, protests, violence, etc.) has a compelling interest in not allowing those types of names.

That's a strawman though, because as others have pointed out, THAT'S NOT EVEN WHAT IS GOING ON HERE.

Nobody is forcing the asshole to change the team's name. They're just saying they're not going to issue a trademark for a racial slur - which has been the law of the land for years.

You either feel like it's a racial slur or you don't. That's the only point that's up for discussion.

[Abe Sargent]

That's exactly what's happening here. A government organization is leaning on a business to change its name. Sure, it may be doing it through lesser means of patents and such rather than out and out illegal things, and sure, the company could keep the team name and just lose out on mascot money, but the government is leaning on them to change their name, and that's wrong.

A few years ago, an adult bookstore was built in a city in WV. It was legal based on the zoning laws at the time. Some people didn;t like it. So they zoned it out. That section of the city was zoned so that adult businesses like, book stores and strip clubs and such would be banned. They chose not to grandfather in any existing businesses. Hey, you aren;t stopped from having your adult bookstore - you can move across town or outside of the city, but you can;t have it where you are (near homes and a playground) which upset the families.

Now, it's not the same mechanism. The zoning was a nastier hammer than the patent office. And the reason are different an adult bookstore vs a racist name. But the concept is identical. Government using its legal methods to lean against a business where it should not get involved.

It would be like me not being able to copyright a book called Jews are Greedy. Or if I had a Motel named "Terrorist Muslims Allowed Hotel" and it was banned by a zoning law.

Anytime government leans on the private sector like this, for any reason (and especially ones of taste), it goes against the grain of a democracy. It reaches past the point of private ownership. It doesn;t matter if the patent office says you can;t own the patent and you'll lose some cash or if the US Army comes marching through and blows up your building -any of that is too far. I think the entire concept is wrong.

And remember, I actually think Dan is wrong too. They should have led the name change a decade ago. This is only going to harden him.

[RainMaker]

which has been the law of the land for years.


So the law of the land hasn't been followed for 82 years?

[BillJasper]

That's exactly what's happening here. A government organization is leaning on a business to change its name. Sure, it may be doing it through lesser means of patents and such rather than out and out illegal things, and sure, the company could keep the team name and just lose out on mascot money, but the government is leaning on them to change their name, and that's wrong.

A few years ago, an adult bookstore was built in a city in WV. It was legal based on the zoning laws at the time. Some people didn;t like it. So they zoned it out. That section of the city was zoned so that adult businesses like, book stores and strip clubs and such would be banned. They chose not to grandfather in any existing businesses. Hey, you aren;t stopped from having your adult bookstore - you can move across town or outside of the city, but you can;t have it where you are (near homes and a playground) which upset the families.

Now, it's not the same mechanism. The zoning was a nastier hammer than the patent office. And the reason are different an adult bookstore vs a racist name. But the concept is identical. Government using its legal methods to lean against a business where it should not get involved.

It would be like me not being able to copyright a book called Jews are Greedy. Or if I had a Motel named "Terrorist Muslims Allowed Hotel" and it was banned by a zoning law.

Anytime government leans on the private sector like this, for any reason (and especially ones of taste), it goes against the grain of a democracy. It reaches past the point of private ownership. It doesn;t matter if the patent office says you can;t own the patent and you'll lose some cash or if the US Army comes marching through and blows up your building -any of that is too far. I think the entire concept is wrong.

And remember, I actually think Dan is wrong too. They should have led the name change a decade ago. This is only going to harden him.

It isn't remotely the same thing. The Redskins will continue to operate as if this didn't happen.

[ISiddiqui]

That's exactly what's happening here. A government organization is leaning on a business to change its name. Sure, it may be doing it through lesser means of patents and such rather than out and out illegal things, and sure, the company could keep the team name and just lose out on mascot money, but the government is leaning on them to change their name, and that's wrong.

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on here. An individual sued based on the law. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is an administrative law court, ruled on the case. It found that the plaintiffs were right that the trademark violated the law.

The government organization isn't leaning on anyone. It's a judicial opinion. Are you saying the government should ignore the law if that means it'll seem like they are "leaning on a business"?

FWIW, the Board ruled the same way in 1999, but an Appeals Court ruled the plaintiffs failed to have standing due to laches.

[molson]

So the law of the land hasn't been followed for 82 years?

I'm sure there's plenty of stuff that couldn't get through 15 U.S.C. § 1052 50 years ago that would have no problem getting registration today, especially the part about not allowing "immoral" and "scandalous" trademarks. And other things, like stuff involving racial sensitivities, can go in the other direction of having a harder time getting registered. The language of the statute allows for that kind of thing. There's a lot of great cases analyzing whether all kinds of fun trademarks fall under that 15 U.S.C. § 1052 restriction - I just looked at two involving failed attempts to trademark "black tail" and "jack-off", with included in-depth analysis of those two terms. As they did in this case, they try to nail down the modern definition of the word through dictionaries, news articles, expert testimony, published books, etc.

And courts have consistently held that the statute doesn't violate the First Amendment because it doesn't stop anybody from using those trademarks, it doesn't restrict anyone's conduct, and it doesn't even directly impact your copyright ownership. It's just an extra-special optional federal government service that you can pay for. There's a statutory right involved, so you do get due process.

This is kind of a fun little paragraph from a D.C. Circuit opinion comparing some historical federal decisions on these kinds of cases (specifically dealing with the restriction against "scandalous" trademarks, but it's the same kind of thing.) This was definitely the most entertaining research project some D.C. Circuit clerk had while he was there.

"In addition, we must be mindful of ever-changing social attitudes and sensitivities. Today's scandal can be tomorrow's vogue. Proof abounds in nearly every quarter, with the news and entertainment media today vividly portraying degrees of violence and sexual activity that, while popular today, would have left the average audience of a generation ago aghast. To appreciate the extreme changes in social mores over time, one need only glance at a historical survey of Board decisions regarding refusals to register marks containing particular words deemed scandalous. Compare In re Old Glory Condom Corp., 26 USPQ2d 1216 (TTAB 1993) (OLD GLORY CONDOM CORP, with stars and stripes design on condoms suggesting the American flag, not scandalous); In re In Over Our Heads Inc., 16 USPQ2d 1653 (TTAB 1990) (MOONIES on dolls, whose pants can be dropped to expose their buttocks, not scandalous); In re Hershey, 6 USPQ2d 1470 (TTAB 1988) (BIG PECKER BRAND on T-shirts not scandalous); In re Leo Quan Inc., 200 USPQ 370 (TTAB 1978) (BADASS for bridges of stringed musical instruments not scandalous); In re Madsen, 180 USPQ 334 (TTAB 1973) (WEEK-END SEX on magazines not scandalous); In re *1372 Hepperle, 175 USPQ 512 (TTAB 1972) (ACAPULCO GOLD on suntan lotion not scandalous); Ex parte Parfum L'Orle, Inc., 93 USPQ 481 (Pat. Off. Exam'r-in-Chief 1952) (LIBIDO on perfumes not scandalous) with In re Tinseltown, Inc., 212 USPQ 863 (TTAB 1981) (BULLSHIT on personal accessories scandalous); In re Runsdorf, 171 USPQ 443 (TTAB 1971) (BUBBY TRAP for brassieres scandalous); In re Sociedade Agricola E. Comerical Dos Vinhos Messias, S.A.R.L., 159 USPQ 275 (TTAB 1968) (MESSIAS on wine and brandy scandalous); In re Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken G.m.b.H., 122 USPQ 339 (TTAB 1959) (SENUSSI on cigarettes scandalous); In re P.J. Valckenberg, GmbH, 122 USPQ 334 (TTAB 1959) (MADONNA on wine scandalous); Ex parte Summit Brass & Bronze Works, Inc., 59 USPQ 22 (TTAB 1943) (AGNUS DEI on metallic tabernacle safes scandalous); In re Riverbank Canning Co., 95 F.2d 327, 37 USPQ 268 (CCPA 1938) (MADONNA on wine scandalous); Ex parte Martha Maid Mfg. Co., 37 USPQ 156 (Comm'r Pats.1938) (QUEEN MARY on women's underwear scandalous)."

[DaddyTorgo]

So the law of the land hasn't been followed for 82 years?

Correct, because nobody with standing had brought suit against the organization. The trademark was obviously issued in a different time when it didn't raise eyebrows, which is why it wasn't rejected initially.

And I see molson did a much better job answering your question.

[DaddyTorgo]

That's exactly what's happening here. A government organization is leaning on a business to change its name. Sure, it may be doing it through lesser means of patents and such rather than out and out illegal things, and sure, the company could keep the team name and just lose out on mascot money, but the government is leaning on them to change their name, and that's wrong.


No...no it's not.

You obviously either (a) don't understand what's actually going on here, or (b) are just being stubborn and refusing to admit you were wrong, (c) don't believe the name is offensive and are fighting tooth and nail to justify it.

[molson]

I think you can definitely make the policy argument that 15 U.S.C. § 1052 should be repealed, though I'm not sure who's proposing that and how much support they'd have in Congress. But as long as it's there, it's there, and people are going to try to claim they were harmed by the government not following its own law correctly.

[sterlingice]

I think this argument is very, very simple at its base to me.

1). No one should ever force the owner of a company to change its name. He owns it. Period. End of discussion. No leaning, or anything else by the government. Leave it to the private citizens to vote with their money

Hold on a second. Is that true in all cases? And why do you think that is true?

If it's because of ownership, there are a lot of examples of regulation that I think most of us are ok with. Just because you own a company doesn't mean you can dump toxic waste in a river without the EPA at your door looking for a hefty fine (pretend it's still true and roll with me here).

Or is it because there's no way you could make a name offensive enough to do actual damage to people? I'd be open to that argument. What about if a company names itself "Abe Sargent is a giant wiener"? Sure it may cost them business but probably not much as there aren't that many people named Abe Sargent and while they might be handicapping themselves out of business with a silly name, maybe the free publicity from the odd name gets them business, too. Regardless of why they do it and how it affects their business- let's just say it's not enough to either put them out of business or grow their business so we remove that part of the equation. Is it fair to name a company that?

Or is there some other rationale that I'm missing?

SI

[Abe Sargent]

I think you are misunderstanding what is going on here. An individual sued based on the law. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, which is an administrative law court, ruled on the case. It found that the plaintiffs were right that the trademark violated the law.

The government organization isn't leaning on anyone. It's a judicial opinion. Are you saying the government should ignore the law if that means it'll seem like they are "leaning on a business"?

FWIW, the Board ruled the same way in 1999, but an Appeals Court ruled the plaintiffs failed to have standing due to laches.

No, I;m saying it should never have been law to begin with.

[ISiddiqui]

Why not? The US government has the right to put limits on the special benefits it provides.

[Julio Riddols]

Can they change their name to the Washington Hogs? I'd like it.

[Abe Sargent]

Why not? The US government has the right to put limits on the special benefits it provides.

Perhaps. What I choose to name my own possessions is not one of them.

Let's create a hypothetical situation that is very analogous do the Dan S one.


Suppose I own a dog. I have registered it with the local city and county authorities, which require me to do so. I have, legally, named my dog "Nigger Lover." I head down the street one day, and call out the name of my dog a few times, like everyone does to their pets. A few people are disturbed.

So they do some research. There's a legal process that they use to bring a case against my dog's name in front of the local registration board. They prove that my dog;'s name is against the rules.

The result is that my dog is officially decertified - and not longer registered with the local authorities.


Now that's it as far as that goes legally. Hey, they can;t impound my pet or anything. Plus, I can change teh dog's name anytime I want and re register is.

Meanwhile, my lease with my landlord increases my rent by $20 a month for each unliscensed pet that I have.

Now, no one is forcing me to change the name of my dog. Legally, all they did was decertify it pending a new change. But it has a force because it has fiscal ramifications. The local government has leaned on teh dog in an non-insignificant way.



I think the situation is strikingly similar - in both cases, a possession ((company, pet) is forced to not be registered (board, patent office) because of a racist name, which may have no additional legal ramifications, but which does have financial ones (extra rent, loss of copyright revenue)/


And i would conclude that in both cases, the dog and the Snyder are being wronged.

And either you see that with my analogy or yo don't.

And nothign else I say weill get that accross better than that.

[Blackadar]

And i would conclude that in both cases, the dog and the Snyder are being wronged.

I would conclude that you need to accept the personal consequences of naming your dog (or team) something offensive.

[Qwikshot]

Perhaps. What I choose to name my own possessions is not one of them.

Let's create a hypothetical situation that is very analogous do the Dan S one.


Suppose I own a dog. I have registered it with the local city and county authorities, which require me to do so. I have, legally, named my dog "Nigger Lover." I head down the street one day, and call out the name of my dog a few times, like everyone does to their pets. A few people are disturbed.

So they do some research. There's a legal process that they use to bring a case against my dog's name in front of the local registration board. They prove that my dog;'s name is against the rules.

The result is that my dog is officially decertified - and not longer registered with the local authorities.


Now that's it as far as that goes legally. Hey, they can;t impound my pet or anything. Plus, I can change teh dog's name anytime I want and re register is.

Meanwhile, my lease with my landlord increases my rent by $20 a month for each unliscensed pet that I have.

Now, no one is forcing me to change the name of my dog. Legally, all they did was decertify it pending a new change. But it has a force because it has fiscal ramifications. The local government has leaned on teh dog in an non-insignificant way.



I think the situation is strikingly similar - in both cases, a possession ((company, pet) is forced to not be registered (board, patent office) because of a racist name, which may have no additional legal ramifications, but which does have financial ones (extra rent, loss of copyright revenue)/


And i would conclude that in both cases, the dog and the Snyder are being wronged.

And either you see that with my analogy or yo don't.

And nothign else I say weill get that accross better than that.

Well in the case of children, I guess you can name them something controversial, but you won't be able to keep them.

Parents of Adolf Hitler Campbell lose custody of newborn Hons - U.S. News (http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2011/11/22/8952917-parents-of-adolf-hitler-campbell-lose-custody-of-newborn-hons?lite)

[Young Drachma]

You folks sure do love throwing around the N-word.

[Young Drachma]

Oh oh, I'm sorry. It's for "research" purposes. ;)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

What do you mean you folks

[DanGarion]

God bless those three Bush-appointed judges who ruled on this case.

Damn liberals!

[DanGarion]

It use to be used as a descriptor like "white" and "black", but many words that become racial slurs don't start out that way. In the late 1800s, early 1900s, the word started to be used to popularize stereotyping of Native Americans. Such as the book "Redskin Rimes", which is filled with racist songs, poems, etc. There was also the Tom and Jerry cartoon "Redskin Blues" which contained a stereotypical portrayal of Native Americans. From these and others, the word "redskin" became synonymous with a portrayal of Native Americans as drunk, lazy and stupid. It was the same evolution of a word that you see with other racial slurs like "kike" or "gook". They didn't start out as racial slurs either.

Actually... redskin had to do with the cut off scalps/pelts of Native Americans...

[DaddyTorgo]

I would conclude that you need to accept the personal consequences of naming your dog (or team) something offensive.

Exactly.

Same as the "Freedom of Speech" argument people so classically misunderstand.

You have the right to name your dog/team/business whatever you want. You don't have immunity from consequences of that action.

[DaddyTorgo]

You folks sure do love throwing around the N-word.

Another insightful part of this thread - seeing who's really a POS.

[Subby]

Washington Redskins Sports Radio Caller Hot Take Bingo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqfuqfFCAAIXhHv.jpg

[Autumn]

That seems to rely on the assumption that we care.

Truth is a great number of us really don't, generally speaking.

It absolutely does, Jon, because I work with the assumption that people other than you actually matter. I know that at that point we no longer have anything to talk about.

[DaddyTorgo]

Washington Redskins Sports Radio Caller Hot Take Bingo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqfuqfFCAAIXhHv.jpg

G1: I'm a 1/16 non-affiliated Cherokee (great-great grandmother on my dad's side was Cherokee) and it offends the fuck out of me.

[Logan]

That seems to rely on the assumption that we care.

Truth is a great number of us really don't, generally speaking.

Throw them out with all them gays, right???

How Christian of you.

[molson]

Meanwhile, my lease with my landlord increases my rent by $20 a month for each unliscensed pet that I have.


That's the landlord's choice, which contradicts your earlier point about wanting people to "vote with their money."

[Abe Sargent]

Washington Redskins Sports Radio Caller Hot Take Bingo

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BqfuqfFCAAIXhHv.jpg

That's funny!

[ISiddiqui]

Perhaps. What I choose to name my own possessions is not one of them.

If you are putting your possessions in the public sphere and attempting to make money from them by using things the government provides you (trademark protection, infrastructure, etc), then damn right what you choose to name your possessions is one of them.

Oh, and I don't see the point of your analogy. Even though its different from above (not putting the dog in the stream of commerce), I find nothing wrong with the city deregistering your dog. We live within a society and I have lots of distaste for the hyperindividualism that already exists in our communities.

[CU Tiger]

I think the main takeaway is that a lot of people don't think of redskins as a racial slur, mostly because Native Americans are now such a cultural minority that to many it packs as much punch as "cracker". Because racism towards African-Americans is still so alive and visible, we can understand why you would never call a sports team Darkies or Niggers, but Redskins just seems anachronistic or hokey.

Where people then go wrong, and where people go wrong in most of these sort of debates, is assuming that since it doesn't seem offensive to them it's not offensive. When we hear something that seems unoffensive to us, but we're being told is offensive to someone else, I wish our response (instead of going "oh my god, so PC!") would be to say, "Huh, it doesn't seem offensive to me. But I'll take your word for it." Then we can ask for more information.

It's not going to kill the great country of America to give somebody else the benefit of the doubt and be open to hearing how they feel before you run to the straw polls and strawmen and any other argument you can find. If someone's making a case that something is offensive there's a good chance someone has been offended, and our job is to find out why, not instantly toss it out. It's the same exact thing i tell my 10 year old nearly every week. "Just because it didn't seem bothersome to you doesn't mean it didn't to your brother. When he's upset, it's his perspective that matters, not yours."

Just to continue the pot stirring and do it with a splash of truth.

Gigantism is a disease. It is a painful, horrible affliction that causes both physical abnormality as well as mental anguish and ostracization because of a physical appearance outside of the cultural norm. It is highly offensive to refer to people with this disease as Giants (Seriosuly I have one in my family and it would literally be fighing words for those close to him).

We no longer use the terms "midget" or "dwarf" and now refer to these people as "little people" for the same reason.

I find the NY Giants to be highly offensive...can I have my cousin file a suit with standing that he is offended and harmed?

As a lifelong Cowboys fan I just found a new way to win the NFC East forever more. We kicked the Cardinals out, once we rename the Skins and the Giants all that is left are those pesky Eagles....and just wait until you see what attrocity we have planed for them...

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

B4

[molson]

Gigantism is a disease. It is a painful, horrible affliction that causes both physical abnormality as well as mental anguish and ostracization because of a physical appearance outside of the cultural norm. It is highly offensive to refer to people with this disease as Giants (Seriosuly I have one in my family and it would literally be fighing words for those close to him).

We no longer use the terms "midget" or "dwarf" and now refer to these people as "little people" for the same reason.

I find the NY Giants to be highly offensive...can I have my cousin file a suit with standing that he is offended and harmed?



It's long, but skim through the opinion from yesterday and see what kind of case the plaintiffs had to make to show both standing, and that registration violated the relevant federal statute. It's more than just taking personal offense at something. You have to make a broader case about the historical and modern use and intention of the word. But if you can make that kind of case and feel strongly about it, go for it. But no, the statute doesn't forbid registrations that anyone finds offensive, and the caselaw interpreting the statute has fleshed out standards that are much broader than that, so you're not going to win if that's all you got.

[Qwikshot]

Just to continue the pot stirring and do it with a splash of truth.

Gigantism is a disease. It is a painful, horrible affliction that causes both physical abnormality as well as mental anguish and ostracization because of a physical appearance outside of the cultural norm. It is highly offensive to refer to people with this disease as Giants (Seriosuly I have one in my family and it would literally be fighing words for those close to him).

We no longer use the terms "midget" or "dwarf" and now refer to these people as "little people" for the same reason.

I find the NY Giants to be highly offensive...can I have my cousin file a suit with standing that he is offended and harmed?

As a lifelong Cowboys fan I just found a new way to win the NFC East forever more. We kicked the Cardinals out, once we rename the Skins and the Giants all that is left are those pesky Eagles....and just wait until you see what attrocity we have planed for them...

That's a stretch...you would have to prove that Giants is named after the disease as opposed to the mythical creature. Good luck with that.

[molson]

It's the same exact thing i tell my 10 year old nearly every week. "Just because it didn't seem bothersome to you doesn't mean it didn't to your brother. When he's upset, it's his perspective that matters, not yours."

I was thinking about this in the context of discussions like this at FOFC. First of all, it's a great lesson generally, and it's something that took me an embarrassingly long time to nail down in the context of relationships.

But I might still not quite grasp it here, in that I just don't get, (and am thus maybe too quick to dismiss) - this fierce protectiveness people have of team names, blackface, the term "thug", being able to call your dog "nigger lover" etc. People get really angry if they feel those things are being taken away from them for reasons they don't understand. I don't get the mindset. If I go into a house, and their custom or religious beliefs calls for me to take off my hat, I don't give a fuck if I understand it or not, I'm taking off the hat. I don't resent them for having that custom. If the custom really goes too far and conflicts with either my values or what I'm willing to do - like if the custom demands I suck everybody's dick in the house, I'm going to pass on the dinner invitation. But I can live without blackface and using the term "thug" to describe someone who isn't actually a criminal, and racist team and dog names - and I think these people angry over this stuff could too. Like it's not a practical loss to them. I don't THINK there's anybody here who is sincerely upset that they can't name their dog something racist, or wear blackface.

But maybe I'm not following that lesson you taught your 10-year old then. I don't get how people get SO offended over not being able to wear blackflace or name their dog nigger-lover, but, that's cool, I don't have to understand. I don't have to associate with them either, and I can strongly hold my own opinion, but maybe there's something deeper there we just don't get.

[Logan]

Just to continue the pot stirring and do it with a splash of truth.

Gigantism is a disease. It is a painful, horrible affliction that causes both physical abnormality as well as mental anguish and ostracization because of a physical appearance outside of the cultural norm. It is highly offensive to refer to people with this disease as Giants (Seriosuly I have one in my family and it would literally be fighing words for those close to him).

We no longer use the terms "midget" or "dwarf" and now refer to these people as "little people" for the same reason.

I find the NY Giants to be highly offensive...can I have my cousin file a suit with standing that he is offended and harmed?

As a lifelong Cowboys fan I just found a new way to win the NFC East forever more. We kicked the Cardinals out, once we rename the Skins and the Giants all that is left are those pesky Eagles....and just wait until you see what attrocity we have planed for them...

24 people were killed by bears from 2005-2012. That would have been an easier argument for you.

edit: God damn it, how did I not use tiger attacks instead? What a dumb shit I am.

[panerd]

24 people were killed by bears from 2005-2012. That would have been an easier argument for you.

edit: God damn it, how did I not use tiger attacks instead? What a dumb shit I am.

And bear is slurring gay people!

[Subby]

Just to continue the pot stirring and do it with a splash of truth.

Gigantism is a disease. It is a painful, horrible affliction that causes both physical abnormality as well as mental anguish and ostracization because of a physical appearance outside of the cultural norm. It is highly offensive to refer to people with this disease as Giants (Seriosuly I have one in my family and it would literally be fighing words for those close to him).

We no longer use the terms "midget" or "dwarf" and now refer to these people as "little people" for the same reason.

I find the NY Giants to be highly offensive...can I have my cousin file a suit with standing that he is offended and harmed?

As a lifelong Cowboys fan I just found a new way to win the NFC East forever more. We kicked the Cardinals out, once we rename the Skins and the Giants all that is left are those pesky Eagles....and just wait until you see what attrocity we have planed for them...
Please keep reaching by using *terrible* examples. We call it Abe Sargentism. :D

[JonInMiddleGA]

It absolutely does, Jon, because I work with the assumption that people other than you actually matter.

Look, I'm routinely offended on a daily basis by a variety of things. Statements, actions, words, you name it.

Does anybody particularly give a fuck?
Do I expect anybody to particularly give a fuck?
Do I villainize everyone who doesn't particularly give a fuck?

The answers to those questions cuts waaaaay down on how bad I'm gonna feel on the occasions when I don't particularly give a fuck.

[CU Tiger]

24 people were killed by bears from 2005-2012. That would have been an easier argument for you.

edit: God damn it, how did I not use tiger attacks instead? What a dumb shit I am.


10,000 people are diagnosed in the US per year with Acromegaly (commonly referred to as Gigantism)

And as it is a hereditary medical condition it is by legal precedence a protected class.

If you dont agree then you would have no problem with the new name being the Washington Retards.



[please turn on your sarcasm meter. I am smiling while typing but I *do* think its a defensable position]

[digamma]

Please stop.

Not only are you completely botching the legal analysis here, my sense is you may really be starting to offend people, sarcasm meter or not.

[molson]

I *do* think its a defensable position]

As long as you're applying something other than the relevant U.S. law, sure.

[Subby]

If you think there is some kind of equivalence between Giants and Redskins, then I don't really know what else to say.

You will also notice that, for good reason, there are no professional or college sports teams with the nickname Retard. But hey...SALIENT EXAMPLE!

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Maybe Redskin has nothing to do with Indians but is instead about psoriasis

[CU Tiger]

I am not trying to "win" a discussion here.
Giant IS an offensive term. But admitedly we did herd up the giants and force them to live on giant farms...well not since the 1500s in Europe anyway.


So if it is an offensive term, is that trademark not also revokable?

Admittedly I havent read the entire complaint, but what damages did the NA plaintiff claim?

[JonInMiddleGA]

I am not trying to "win" a discussion here.

No chance.

Thou shalt not rage against political correctness, nor point out the absurdity of it, nor even risk highlighted how -- somewhere, somehow -- someone will be offended by virtually anything.

I'm surprised that dog lovers haven't filed suit over teams with cat-related names at this point.

[molson]

Here's the actual opinion if anyone cares. It's long, but you can skim a lot of it, and there's even pictures! (And I believe it's 14-point font, about 30 pages of citations, and the majority opinion is only 70 pages).

USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92046185 (http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

I know you guys want to live like Jesus but this is getting out of hand.

[molson]

So if it is an offensive term, is that trademark not also revokable?



The standard isn't whether a term is "offensive" to someone. I'm just going to keep saying that.

Edit: But again, if you're truly offended by the Giants trademark, hire a lawyer, file suit in federal court, petition for the cancellation of that trademark registration, and let us know how it goes. I'm serious, call a few lawyers, tell them you've knowledgeable of the law, you've worked this all out, the rest of us trying to tell you differently are just idiots, that you really have a case, and you're willing to pay. I bet you can find someone to take your money and file something.

[CU Tiger]

The standard isn't whether a term is "offensive" to someone. I'm just going to keep saying that.

Edit: But again, if you're truly offended by the Giants trademark, hire a lawyer, file suit in federal court, petition for the cancellation of that trademark registration, and let us know how it goes. I'm serious, call a few lawyers, tell them you've knowledgeable of the law, you've worked this all out, the rest of us trying to tell you differently are just idiots, that you really have a case, and you're willing to pay. I bet you can find someone to take your money and file something.


Molson,
I dont understand the heat.
I am NOT knowledgeable of the law, I am stating that as a given.

Can you explain to me what is the standard if it isnt offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.

[Qwikshot]

Molson,
I dont understand the heat.
I am NOT knowledgeable of the law, I am stating that as a given.

Can you explain to me what is the standard if it isnt offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.

The problem is that you aren't even using Giant in the right terminology. I thought it was rhetorical at first, but if you are serious, you would have to prove that it's being used in a derogatory manner.

You won't.be.able.to.do.this.

I would say you'd have a better chance (if you were Irish and insulted) to sue Notre Dame.

You got no case for NY or San Francisco

[RainMaker]

I need only the most politically correct team names when I watch grown men give each other brain damage.

[BillJasper]

I am not trying to "win" a discussion here.
Giant IS an offensive term. But admitedly we did herd up the giants and force them to live on giant farms...well not since the 1500s in Europe anyway.


So if it is an offensive term, is that trademark not also revokable?



It could be revokable if someone brought a complaint and proved that it was a derogatory term. But the impact of the Giants losing such a case is would be minor. Just like it is minor for the Redskins to have lost the case.

But the government didn't just up and declare the term Redskin a derogatory term. People had to bring a case and prove that the term was derogatory.

[DaddyTorgo]

Molson,
I dont understand the heat.
I am NOT knowledgeable of the law, I am stating that as a given.

Can you explain to me what is the standard if it isnt offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.

Molson laid it out in an earlier post. Go back through his posts in the thread and you'll see it - it has all the squigglies and stuff of a legal code.

[Qwikshot]

Proud To Be - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mR-tbOxlhvE)

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Here's a nice summary of the actual issues involved in the case: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/80466492/washington-redskins-logo-trademark-explainer-dan-snyder-courts#!0WnjF

[BillJasper]

I think this one says it all...

Hmmm. Does that last observation have something to do with both Snyder and Goodell refusing to answer the question when asked if they would call a Native American person "Redskin" to their face?

Probably.

If the name of your team is a name you wouldn't call someone to their face, it's probably time to change the name of the team.

[NobodyHere]

Yeah, I would never call someone a "Brown"

[BillJasper]

Yeah, I would never call someone a "Brown"

Thing is, we know where the term "Brown" comes from. And reporters have actually asked that question in the past, "how does it feel to be a Brown?".

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Molson,
I dont understand the heat.
I am NOT knowledgeable of the law, I am stating that as a given.

Can you explain to me what is the standard if it isnt offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.

The USPTO used a two pronged question to determine this issue:

a. What is the meaning of the matter in question, as it appears in the marks and as those marks are used in connection with the goods and services identified in the registrations?

b. Is the meaning of the marks one that may disparage Native Americans?

Your Giant example would fail the first one, because Giant is not used to mean giant in the way you are implying.

[sterlingice]

B4

:D

SI

[NobodyHere]

Thing is, we know where the term "Brown" comes from. And reporters have actually asked that question in the past, "how does it feel to be a Brown?".
You misunderstood me, I didn't mean the term itself was offensive, I just think it would be downright degrading and insulting to be associated with that so called "professional" football team.

[stevew]

has 1 person in the history of San Francisco called for the name Giants to be changed?

[BillJasper]

You misunderstood me, I didn't mean the term itself was offensive, I just think it would be downright degrading and insulting to be associated with that so called "professional" football team.

:lol:

[molson]

Molson,
I dont understand the heat.
I am NOT knowledgeable of the law, I am stating that as a given.

Can you explain to me what is the standard if it isnt offensive, vulgar, or derogatory.

I've cited the law, I've linked the opinion in this case, I've described the kinds of numerous factors and evidence courts analyze in determining whether something falls under the statutory language, I've even discussed the evolution of the case law interpreting that statutory language. But I'll get into more detail at the end of this post anyway.

As for the "heat", I guess it's the same pet peeve I have whenever this kind of thing comes up, this "dash of truth" (your quote), comes across as this assumption that you've figured all of this out on some different plane than what the actual legal dispute was over. It's like talking to a sovereign citizen who is trying to convince you that their traffic ticket is illegal because they've never consented to the jurisdiction of the local government over them, or someone who thinks I was racist in the Trayvon Martin thread for describing self-defense law and the challenges the prosecution faced in that case. There's the law, but shit, if CU Tiger doesn't think the term is offensive, that's what should matter.

And someone can definitely reasonably disagree with the legal conclusions or even the standing issue (like I do), or the merits of the statute to begin with, and you don't have to be a legal expert to do that, but usually the points don't even do that. When the issue is sensitive, sometimes the law just goes out the window and people get super-convinced that they're correct based on their own moral law they're applying. They don't want to hear or acknowledge what the actual issue is about, or what the court is actually tasked with deciding. And worse, sometimes they actually view their moral law as superior and more relevant than the actual law, so you're basically immoral for arguing the actual law (you're not doing that here, but I could see how things could drift into that with someone who feels more strongly about this.)

As for this case, maybe it would help to describe it as an objective rather than a subjective test. It's not enough to go into court and say that you're personally offended by a trademark. The trademark has to objectively disparage some group in some substantial way. There was a lot of expert witness testimony and empirical analysis involving the evolution of the term Redskin. As just one example of that, the evidence showed that the word "Redskin" has pretty much disappeared from common usage since the 60's with three exceptions - it's used as either a racial slur, or in an academic context discussing how the name disparages native Americans, or as a name for a football team, that's pretty much it. People don't throw out that word in casual usage anymore. Not like the word "Giant" - a search of that word in dictionaries and newspaper articles and published books would show that it's used in all kinds of innocuous contexts. You'd have to dig deep to find references to that word being used to disparage people with gigantism. The common uses of the word giant are used much more frequently, like a billion times more frequently. So even if someone is sincerely and personally offended by that word, that doesn't get a trademark cancelled on its own. They'd have to show that the term more broadly, more objectively, and more substantially actually does disparage some group of people, and doesn't have any other significant common usage.

[Autumn]

I was thinking about this in the context of discussions like this at FOFC. First of all, it's a great lesson generally, and it's something that took me an embarrassingly long time to nail down in the context of relationships.

But I might still not quite grasp it here, in that I just don't get, (and am thus maybe too quick to dismiss) - this fierce protectiveness people have of team names, blackface, the term "thug", being able to call your dog "nigger lover" etc. People get really angry if they feel those things are being taken away from them for reasons they don't understand. I don't get the mindset. If I go into a house, and their custom or religious beliefs calls for me to take off my hat, I don't give a fuck if I understand it or not, I'm taking off the hat. I don't resent them for having that custom. If the custom really goes too far and conflicts with either my values or what I'm willing to do - like if the custom demands I suck everybody's dick in the house, I'm going to pass on the dinner invitation. But I can live without blackface and using the term "thug" to describe someone who isn't actually a criminal, and racist team and dog names - and I think these people angry over this stuff could too. Like it's not a practical loss to them. I don't THINK there's anybody here who is sincerely upset that they can't name their dog something racist, or wear blackface.

But maybe I'm not following that lesson you taught your 10-year old then. I don't get how people get SO offended over not being able to wear blackflace or name their dog nigger-lover, but, that's cool, I don't have to understand. I don't have to associate with them either, and I can strongly hold my own opinion, but maybe there's something deeper there we just don't get.

I'm not sure, but I think you have me backwards--I agree with you. If someone is bothered by something, my first assumption is that I should just stop doing it, if it's incredibly unimportant, like the name of a team, or a piece of slang. If I'm interested I can ask more about it, but I'm not going to instantly pitch a fit about my rights. It seems however that a lot of people would rather instantly get bothered by being asked to do anything that isn't for their benefit, or that they don't quite understand the import of. Like you, I doubt that these issues are really of any true importance to the PC police.

The analogy to my kids is this, my youngest son will get upset because his brother said something or poked him or did whatever. My oldest will watch the younger one burst into tears because he refuses to stop, and when I ask what's going on will tell me that, "I was just doing X, it's no big deal." Well, apparently it's a big deal to someone else, so rather than instantly raising up fences about why you don't think it's a big deal, it seems the ball should be in the court of the person who's upset about it. Let's find out why my younger son is bothered by it rather than simply telling him he doesn't have the right to be upset. If you're not interested in that, than just stop doing it or go somewhere else. Staying there and insisting on doing the apparently offensive thing is just a dick move, it seems to me and one that assumes that your own perspective is more important than other people's.

[DanGarion]

Let's just change them to the Washington Crusaders, I mean that can't be offensive to anyone, they only killed like 20,000,000+ people.

[molson]

Let's just change them to the Washington Crusaders, I mean that can't be offensive to anyone, they only killed like 20,000,000+ people.

Webster-Miriam is just one dictionary, and the federal court in this case entertained evidence and testimony that analyzed hundreds of dictionaries, newspaper database searches, etc, but if we could boil down this elusive difference between Redskin and other words like Crusader and Giant, Webster-Miriam gives a good summary:

Crusader: one who is intensely or excessively devoted to a cause

Redskin: usually offensive. american indian

Oh hell, I'll do another one, dictionary.com

Crusader: 1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. any war carried on under papal sanction. 3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

Redskin: Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.

Having no other definition definitely makes a word more "disparaging" or "scandalous" under trademark law. "Hitler" probably wouldn't fly, even if your product had nothing to do with the German leader. Hitler-brand chewing gum - no (you could still make that gum, but you can't force the government to endorse the trademark with registration). "Adolph" might be OK, as long as the product or mark had nothing to do with the German leader, because that's a little more common a term that is used more innocuously. If our society was a little more connected to the Crusades, like we are Native Americans, and the Jewish Holocaust, "Crusader" might become a dirty word, but it clearly isn't in modern society. If you go on TV and say, "The Republicans are on a Crusade to do X", you're not going to be forced to resign because you said "Crusade". If you go on TV and say, "The governor opposed the Redskin casino", you're going to be hot water. That's the difference. The words aren't inherently bad. Any word could theoretically offend someone. The question is how society as a whole perceives the word at a given time.

[DaddyTorgo]

Webster-Miriam is just one dictionary, and the federal court in this case entertained evidence and testimony that analyzed hundreds of dictionaries, newspaper database searches, etc, but if we could boil down this elusive difference between Redskin and other words like Crusader and Giant, Webster-Miriam gives a good summary:

Crusader: one who is intensely or excessively devoted to a cause

Redskin: usually offensive. american indian

Oh hell, I'll do another one, dictionary.com

Crusader: 1. ( often initial capital letter ) any of the military expeditions undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries for the recovery of the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. any war carried on under papal sanction. 3. any vigorous, aggressive movement for the defense or advancement of an idea, cause, etc.: a crusade against child abuse.

Redskin: Slang: Often Disparaging and Offensive. a North American Indian.

Having no other definition definitely makes a word more "disparaging" or "scandalous" under trademark law. "Hitler" probably wouldn't fly, even if your product had nothing to do with the German leader. Hitler-brand chewing gum - no. "Adolph" might be OK, as long as the product or mark had nothing to do with the German leader, because that's a little more common a term that is used more innocuously. If our society was a little more connected to the Crusades, like we are Native Americans, and the Jewish Holocaust, "Crusader" might become a dirty word, but it clearly isn't in modern society. If you go on TV and say, "The Republicans are on a Crusade to do X", you're not going to be forced to resign because you said "Crusade". If you go on TV and say, "The governor opposed the Redskin casino", you're going to be hot water. That's the difference. The words aren't inherently bad. Any word could theoretically offend someone. The question is how society as a whole perceives the word at a given time.

This is great - hopefully it puts all the ridiculous comparisons out to pasture.

[BillJasper]

This is great - hopefully it puts all the ridiculous comparisons out to pasture.

Nope. Because FREEDOM!!1!

[CU Tiger]

I've cited the law, I've linked the opinion in this case, I've described the kinds of numerous factors and evidence courts analyze in determining whether something falls under the statutory language, I've even discussed the evolution of the case law interpreting that statutory language. But I'll get into more detail at the end of this post anyway.

As for the "heat", I guess it's the same pet peeve I have whenever this kind of thing comes up, this "dash of truth" (your quote), comes across as this assumption that you've figured all of this out on some different plane than what the actual legal dispute was over. It's like talking to a sovereign citizen who is trying to convince you that their traffic ticket is illegal because they've never consented to the jurisdiction of the local government over them, or someone who thinks I was racist in the Trayvon Martin thread for describing self-defense law and the challenges the prosecution faced in that case. There's the law, but shit, if CU Tiger doesn't think the term is offensive, that's what should matter.

And someone can definitely reasonably disagree with the legal conclusions or even the standing issue (like I do), or the merits of the statute to begin with, and you don't have to be a legal expert to do that, but usually the points don't even do that. When the issue is sensitive, sometimes the law just goes out the window and people get super-convinced that they're correct based on their own moral law they're applying. They don't want to hear or acknowledge what the actual issue is about, or what the court is actually tasked with deciding. And worse, sometimes they actually view their moral law as superior and more relevant than the actual law, so you're basically immoral for arguing the actual law (you're not doing that here, but I could see how things could drift into that with someone who feels more strongly about this.)

As for this case, maybe it would help to describe it as an objective rather than a subjective test. It's not enough to go into court and say that you're personally offended by a trademark. The trademark has to objectively disparage some group in some substantial way. There was a lot of expert witness testimony and empirical analysis involving the evolution of the term Redskin. As just one example of that, the evidence showed that the word "Redskin" has pretty much disappeared from common usage since the 60's with three exceptions - it's used as either a racial slur, or in an academic context discussing how the name disparages native Americans, or as a name for a football team, that's pretty much it. People don't throw out that word in casual usage anymore. Not like the word "Giant" - a search of that word in dictionaries and newspaper articles and published books would show that it's used in all kinds of innocuous contexts. You'd have to dig deep to find references to that word being used to disparage people with gigantism. The common uses of the word giant are used much more frequently, like a billion times more frequently. So even if someone is sincerely and personally offended by that word, that doesn't get a trademark cancelled on its own. They'd have to show that the term more broadly, more objectively, and more substantially actually does disparage some group of people, and doesn't have any other significant common usage.

I (sincerely) appreciate the response, and to be fair I hadnt read much of the previous linked to when I was posting yesterday.

FWIW I do think the name Redskin should be changed, however on a personal "gut feel" I dont think trademark revocation passes some undefineable "sniff test" for me. To be clear, I realize my moral compass does not govern law or anyone outside of my household nor do I want it to.

I am more over just stating my opinion.

The entire Giant tangent was a shifted thought pattern for me. One that I draw correlations to that I can not reconcile cleanly in my own conscious, but simultaneously cant further explain in a meaningul way either.

But sincerely thank you for taking the time to respond.

[Abe Sargent]

Please keep reaching by using *terrible* examples. We call it Abe Sargentism. :D

I prefer Abeist! ;)

[Solecismic]

As much as my anti-PC heart would like to see this case fail, this seems like a little more than PC.

Going back to the idea that ownership of a sports franchise is somewhat of a public trust, it's time to change the name.

I do find it ironic that those willing to parody people who don't like the idea of a name change are happy to call Snyder a "retard," though.

[DanGarion]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/rnK-jYzaWtw?rel=0" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[miami_fan]

Update

Federal judge upholds Washington Redskins trademark ruling (http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/13220885/federal-judge-upholds-washington-redskins-trademark-ruling)

[mtolson]

Just change the name already.... And make millions off the of the change. Have a contest to choose the new team and logo. This could be a PR bonanza if played right. Redskins fans are die yards. All those jersey sales of the new uniforms as well as selling out all the old ones for those that want to protest.

[molson]

I get so confused when mtolson shows up to post something.

[ISiddiqui]

LOL!

[Subby]

mtolson is a more efficient poster, to be sure. ;)

[stevew]

When are the NFL Apps getting pulled from the App Store.

[Dutch]

Don't forget that George Washington was a slave owner.

[CU Tiger]

Don't forget that George Washington was a slave owner.

Shit George Washington KILLED Redskins...