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

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

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.

New thread.

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

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.

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.

From the WaPo story:
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!)

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

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.

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 don't know - is it a registered trademark?

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.)

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.

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?

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.

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

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

Redskins owner loses trademark protection but is still defiant. Says, "you'll have to Sioux me"

— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) June 18, 2014

Would this even be constitutional?

The NFL.

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!"

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

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.

Palefaces very worked up about this one.

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

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).

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

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).

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.

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

Yeah you're dense.

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.

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).

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

The South Carolina Darkies has a nice ring to it.

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

Not to mention what negro turned into.

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

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.

Weird thought process.

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

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.

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Thanks. ;)

No disagreements here.

;)

I go commando. :cool:

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

How Many Native Americans Think ‘Redskins’ is a Slur? « CBS DC

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

:lol:

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.

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.

That seems to rely on the assumption that we care.

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

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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)."

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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