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

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by 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

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]

Originally Posted by 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?

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:

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

I concur

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Qwikshot

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]

Originally Posted by cougarfreak

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)

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

— Albert Brooks (@AlbertBrooks) June 18, 2014

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by 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.

Would this even be constitutional?

[rowech]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[molson]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by Izulde

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]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

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]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs3

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]

Originally Posted by Logan

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]

Originally Posted by molson

The South Carolina Darkies has a nice ring to it.

Not to mention what negro turned into.

[Logan]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

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.