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

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

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

Nope. Because FREEDOM!!1!

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by molson

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]

Originally Posted by Subby

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

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]

[miami_fan]

Update

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]

Originally Posted by Dutch

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

Shit George Washington KILLED Redskins...