Trademark protection for Washington Redskins team name cancelled

[JODYE]

Quote: Originally Posted by TheMatrix31

There are plenty of other issues to name, just none of which can be named here. I just don't get how some people don't see how sickening the cultural bullying is in our current society. Better be careful you've never said anything incendiary or anything that could *possibly* be construed as offensive, because nowadays it might cost you everything. That's by FAR the biggest issue with all of this. How proud can people feel that they forced someone into changing a name? Probably very proud, actually, but they shouldn't be because that's so hollow. If I was legitimately offended by the team name (or much of anything), I wouldn't feel satisfied unless the changed happened naturally. This isn't natural. This is strong-arming. That's why it's not about the name. It's about people flexing muscles.

This pretty much sums this up for me.

(Please remove the rest if ANY of this violates the TOS)

It's a pride thing from my perspective. Part of my fathers side has Native American heritage, and not one has expressed their displeasure with the name. In fact, they actually enjoy the recognition it brings. Really it comes down to (at least from what I can see) as you said Matrix, a group of people wanting to flex some muscle, and prevent an owner, specifically Dan Snyder to continue profiting from their history. The term "Redskin" was originated and used by Native Americans. It was used to describe the paint they used on their bodies for decorations and Indian chiefs would refer to themselves as such.

Hell, the state of Oklahoma literally means "Red People", but I've never heard any outcry regarding that?

Really, I don't care either way. At the end of the day it's just a name of a football team. But I don't like the way it was handled one bit. This creates a slippery slope IMO.

[BigBoi23]

Quote: Originally Posted by Segagendude

Definition of hypocrisy. http://m1.marketwatch.com/articles/B...ile=y&mobile=y

Kind of tenuous. As the article states, who knows if she protested it or not? Because she didn't single-handedly get the name changed at both her high school and college she's a hypocrite? Come on.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigBoi23

Would a reasonable compromise to your second reason be to allow the tribes to choose a new nickname, if they deem it necessary?

I don't think so bc the name still changes. If the name has to change, why would Snyder care about what the tribes or anyone else wants it to be? Other than maybe the DC fans he now has to convince to buy a ton of new merchandise.

Considering what you're addressing, yes it might do the trick. But even though that's being stated as a reason to not change the name, that's very, very far from the center of the issue here (which is also a large part of the problem to begin with... see Matrix for a detailed explanation here, lol).

Quote: Originally Posted by mb625

What I find most odd about this whole situation is the support from Native Americans themselves, not just voicing support for the name, etc. but also contributing to the brand itself. The name was coined in the early thirties because a lot of the players and the coach at that time (William Dietz) were at least part Native American (Dietz's status as a Native American is questionable, but he labeled himself as such). In the mid-seventies the President of the National Congress of American Indians worked very closely with the Redskins to create a new logo for them, embracing the name. What I can't understand is how there was little to no outcry from the Native American community for around 70 years of this name being in use and all of a sudden, in the last ten, people from outside of that community are crying foul and complaining that it's a major offense. That's about as far as I can go on this without crossing TOS lines. (if I have, then, by all means, delete this post.)

You're fine.

Listening to the radio in the DC area and it appears there was noise made last the Skins were good... then they were bad for a while... then in 2012 they hit the playoffs and boom, it's an issue again.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigBoi23

Kind of tenuous. As the article states, who knows if she protested it or not? Because she didn't single-handedly get the name changed at both her high school and college she's a hypocrite? Come on.

I will say as emphatic as they made it seem she was about the name, you'd think it would play a factor in her choosing a college with Redskins as the mascot (even if we ignore high school)... or would've had a lot more to say about it before that playoff game. The Skins have been around for a long time before 2012.

[wwharton]

Quote: Originally Posted by Steven78

But as a practical matter, this could turn out to be the tipping point on this issue: If the Redskins lose their appeal of this ruling and therefore lose their trademark for good, anyone can sell cheap “Redskins” gear without paying to license the products. That would mean all those Redskins shirts and hats and other officially licensed gear would no longer need to be officially licensed. It could be sold anywhere, by anyone. And losing the exclusive right to sell Redskins shirts and hats and other gear would be costly. Could Redskins owner Dan Snyder, who insists that he will never change the name, afford to lose that money? Yes. But even if Snyder is so devoted to the Redskins name that he’s willing to lose money over it, losing the ability to trademark the name wouldn’t just cost Snyder money. It would also cost the other teams, and the NFL’s merchandising partners, money. Snyder’s fellow owners aren’t going to stand for that. Ultimately, the Redskins are “fine” only in the sense that they haven’t immediately lost their battle to keep their name. Where the Redskins aren’t fine is that in the long run, this ruling represents the biggest challenge yet to Snyder. And even if Snyder is willing to keep fighting, the time is likely to come when his fellow owners and NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell sit him down and tell him that the fight isn’t just about the Redskins logo. It’s also about the NFL Shield that Goodell cares so much about. And if Snyder’s stubbornness is hurting the league as a whole, he’s going to be forced to change, whether that change comes from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office or not."

This type of plagiarism is almost ban-worthy.

[King_B_Mack]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigBoi23

Kind of tenuous. As the article states, who knows if she protested it or not? Because she didn't single-handedly get the name changed at both her high school and college she's a hypocrite? Come on.

She hadn't ever heard of the Washington Redskins before 2013 though? That seems highly unlikely.

[BigBoi23]

Quote: Originally Posted by King_B_Mack

She hadn't ever heard of the Washington Redskins before 2013 though? That seems highly unlikely.

Well, yeah, that seems like a classic case of a politician jumping in on an issue they're uninformed about.

[Segagendude]

Quote: Originally Posted by BigBoi23

Kind of tenuous. As the article states, who knows if she protested it or not? Because she didn't single-handedly get the name changed at both her high school and college she's a hypocrite? Come on.

Yes. Because she only seems to care about the NFL team. She was "appalled".

Was she appalled her whole time in school? Or is she appalled now because she got paid---- err, she's in a power position.