U.S. Patent Office cancels trademark registrations for NFL’s Washington Redskins

[MI451]

I can't speak to Cal's statistic, but I can quote the following:

 

"A leader of the Navajo Code Talkers who appeared at a Washington Redskins home football game says he considers the team name a symbol of loyalty and courage not a derogatory slur."

 

Given that this man was (or nearly was) an adult at the time the Redskins were formed, I'd say he's in a pretty good position to know if the team name was intended as a slur.

 

And there's my problem with the government's role in this. It is supposed to equally protect all persons and their property. (and it's not just the Washington Redskins organization that can be financially hurt here. Anyone along the supply chain from Nike to Dick's Sporting Goods will be hurt as Redkins' counterfeit goods will be lawful should they lose on appeal.)

 

I've never even heard the word defamation, libel, or slander in this whole argument against the name, much less damages. It's only about feelings, and the Federal government isn't the arbiter on feelings.

For me the idea that they only want a name change and don't push for any of those strengthens their argument. They are not pushing it into the absurd. A name change is not a huge deal. It happens allbthe time in business.

[RangerM]

For me the idea that they only want a name change and don't push for any of those strengthens their argument. They are not pushing it into the absurd. A name change is not a huge deal. It happens allbthe time in business.

But it should happen the right way.

 

If peoples' attitude is so put off and they cease buying tickets or memorabilia, that the Redskins' owner's bottom line suffers; and THEN he decides to change the name, that's okay by me.

 

Getting the government to harm his bottom line, is NOT okay by me.

 

Why is it okay to you? When will it NOT be acceptable to you?

[NickF1011]

All you have to do is visit the home page of the National Congress of American Indians to see where their leadership stands.

 

And it's not like this is the first time a team has changed its name to stop offending a particular group: St. Bonaventure Brown Indians, Marquette Warriors, St. John's Redmen, Miami (OH) Redskins, Syracuse Orangemen.

 

Several other teams no longer use native american imagery now either, even though the names have not yet changed, Texas Tech Red Raiders and William & Mary Tribe amongst them.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

The question (for me) is NOT that team should/shouldn't be sensitive to others. It IS whether or not it is proper for the government to say, "We'll stand back and let people steal from you"

Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

The question (for me) is NOT that team should/shouldn't be sensitive to others. It IS whether or not it is proper for the government to say, "We'll stand back and let people steal from you"

 

Well, being that the team is sanctioned by the government to even exist in the first place under anti-trust provisions, they ultimately do hold that right. That said, I would hope the ownership would be smart enough to just make the move on their own like many of the schools I listed did.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

 

Well, being that the team is sanctioned by the government to even exist in the first place under anti-trust provisions, they ultimately do hold that right.

I believe you're confusing the NFL organization with the individual teams.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 32 NFL teams are individual businesses.

[NickF1011]

I believe you're confusing the NFL organization with the individual teams.

 

The Supreme Court has ruled that the 32 NFL teams are individual businesses.

 

Hmmm not familiar enough with the law to say one way or another, but the teams still have special protections given to them by the government. And well, since the teams operate across state lines, it's not an issue that can be resolved by local or state government either. Yes, the feds have more important things to do, but it does ultimately fall to their jurisdiction.

[RangerM]

 

Hmmm not familiar enough with the law to say one way or another, but the teams still have special protections given to them by the government. And well, since the teams operate across state lines, it's not an issue that can be resolved by local or state government either. Yes, the feds have more important things to do, but it does ultimately fall to their jurisdiction.

I think it's a bit dangerous to say the government can decide on the basis of public (be it minority or majority) opinion that it will not protect property rights. It takes "rule of law" and turns it on its head.

[NickF1011]

I think it's a bit dangerous to say the government can decide on the basis of public (be it minority or majority) opinion that it will not protect property rights. It takes "rule of law" and turns it on its head.

 

Well, was it already "rule of law" that trademarks shouldn't be granted for things that are deemed offensive/derogatory to protected groups? Unfortunately it comes down to this: the American Indians were powerless to prevent the Redskins from naming their team that in the first place. Now they may finally be in a position to change what was wrong since the very beginning. The only entity that can really force that correction is the government. After all, they were the ones responsible for allowing the team to be named that in the first place and letting it carry on for the past 80 years.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

 

Well, was it already "rule of law" that trademarks shouldn't be granted for things that are deemed offensive/derogatory to protected groups? Unfortunately it comes down to this: the American Indians were powerless to prevent the Redskins from naming their team that in the first place. Now they may finally be in a position to change what was wrong since the very beginning. The only entity that can really force that correction is the government. After all, they were the ones responsible for allowing the team to be named that in the first place and letting it carry on for the past 80 years.

What are "Protected groups", and what actionable loss is involved here that dictates that only the government (and not the marketplace) can remedy? The government didn't "allow" the team to name itself the Redskins.

 

Remember, the government can't force the team to change names. It can only say that if people want to counterfeit their merchandise (by denying trademark protection), then the government says, "OK".

[NickF1011]

What are "Protected groups", and what actionable loss is involved here that dictates that only the government (and not the marketplace) can remedy? The government didn't "allow" the team to name itself the Redskins.

 

Remember, the government can't force the team to change names. It can only say that if people want to counterfeit their merchandise (by denying trademark protection), then the government says, "OK".

 

Oh, I'm sure the government could find some way to force a name change, or at least make it so uncomfortable for the team to do business that it really has no other choice. Like I keep saying though, I'd rather the team ownership take it upon themselves to do it. Why the hell would you want to own a team with a name a large group of people finds offensive anyway? It just boggles my mind. Fans are still going to like their Washington NFL franchise just as much (and some people even more) with a different name.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

 

Oh, I'm sure the government could find some way to force a name change, or at least make it so uncomfortable for the team to do business that it really has no other choice.

I suppose that's better than Stalin's method of coercion, but not by much.

Like I keep saying though, I'd rather the team ownership take it upon themselves to do it. Why the hell would you want to own a team with a name a large group of people finds offensive anyway? It just boggles my mind. Fans are still going to like their Washington NFL franchise just as much (and some people even more) with a different name.

All I can really say is it is not (or shouldn't be) for the government to decide whose opinion matters more.

 

If we're going down that path, then perhaps it would be useful to come up with an "outrage index" whereby we can quantify the level of misery derived from a name or speech or photograph or religion or owning a gun or being too rich, and on, and on.

[FiredMotorCompany]

I suppose that's better than Stalin's method of coercion, but not by much.

All I can really say is it is not (or shouldn't be) for the government to decide whose opinion matters more.

 

If we're going down that path, then perhaps it would be useful to come up with an "outrage index" whereby we can quantify the level of misery derived from a name or speech or photograph or religion or owning a gun or being too rich, and on, and on.

We ARE going down that path. Just try to keep your money if you work hard enough to out-earn a democrat. Wait, I haven't seen Harry Reid claiming he's dead broke. And he gets better health care and pension than anyone he represents.

[NickF1011]

I suppose that's better than Stalin's method of coercion, but not by much.

All I can really say is it is not (or shouldn't be) for the government to decide whose opinion matters more.

 

If we're going down that path, then perhaps it would be useful to come up with an "outrage index" whereby we can quantify the level of misery derived from a name or speech or photograph or religion or owning a gun or being too rich, and on, and on.

 

The government decides whose opinion matters more all the time. Its role is to make those decisions based on law. If the law determines that the name should be changed, then so be it. What I'll say AGAIN is that it's unfortunate if it has to come to that. Dan Snyder and the backwards fans defending the name are on the wrong side of history.

Edited June 19, 2014 by NickF1011

[MI451]

We ARE going down that path. Just try to keep your money if you work hard enough to out-earn a democrat. Wait, I haven't seen Harry Reid claiming he's dead broke. And he gets better health care and pension than anyone he represents.

What???

[RangerM]

 

The government decides whose opinion matters more all the time. Its role is to make those decisions based on law. If the law determines that the name should be changed, then so be it. What I'll say AGAIN is that it's unfortunate if it has to come to that. Dan Snyder and the backwards fans defending the name are on the wrong side of history.

I don't believe anyone relishes in the Redskins' controversy; except maybe Donald Sterling.

 

True, the government is the arbiter of disputes, however in civil law it usually involves a tort and determination of damages. This case has neither of those. So all we're left with is feelings and opinion. And I don't think you want government based on that.

 

If this were a case of someone wanting a personalized license plate that says "I H8 NGRS", I'm in full agreement with you. But it isn't, and I'm not.

Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

I don't believe anyone relishes in the Redskins' controversy; except maybe Donald Sterling.

 

True, the government is the arbiter of disputes, however in civil law it usually involves a tort and determination of damages. This case has neither of those. So all we're left with is feelings and opinion. And I don't think you want government based on that.

 

Ohhh, I'm sure native americans could claim the ever popular emotional distress. It's all just embarrassing that the government is even put in the situation where it would have to try to do anything about it.

[RangerM]

 

Ohhh, I'm sure native americans could claim the ever popular emotional distress. It's all just embarrassing that the government is even put in the situation where it would have to try to do anything about it.

But that's related to Slander or Libel. I haven't seen anything indicating anyone claiming that in this case.

 

I agree with you, though. It's a stupid thing for the government to be involved in.

 

But, it does get headlines, and keeps eyes off other (more pressing) issues.

Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

But that's related to Slander or Libel. I haven't seen anything indicating anyone claiming that in this case.

 

I agree with you, though. It's a stupid thing for the government to be involved in.

 

But, it does get headlines, and keeps eyes off other (more pressing) issues.

 

Don't have to slander or libel to claim emotional distress. But anyway, yeah, they should probably just go ahead and change the name. The fact that a controversy even exists should be enough to make the owner question himself.

 

And think of all the potential windfall from changing the name! Naming contests, etc. And then fans would want to go buy all the latest jerseys, hats, etc with all the new logos. And it would finally give them an excuse to get rid of those god awful burgundy and yellow uniforms.

[MI451]

All you have to do is visit the home page of the National Congress of American Indians to see where their leadership stands.

 

And it's not like this is the first time a team has changed its name to stop offending a particular group: St. Bonaventure Brown Indians, Marquette Warriors, St. John's Redmen, Miami (OH) Redskins, Syracuse Orangemen.

 

Several other teams no longer use native american imagery now either, even though the names have not yet changed, Texas Tech Red Raiders and William & Mary Tribe amongst them.

 

Not only did Syracuse have the Orangeman, a reference to the Northern Ireland fraternal order which saw some of it's members involved in sectarian violence, it removed it's Saltine warrior mascot at behest of Native Americans. And eventually it removed the reference to that organization also and just became the Orange.

[MI451]

But it should happen the right way.

 

If peoples' attitude is so put off and they cease buying tickets or memorabilia, that the Redskins' owner's bottom line suffers; and THEN he decides to change the name, that's okay by me.

 

Getting the government to harm his bottom line, is NOT okay by me.

 

Why is it okay to you? When will it NOT be acceptable to you?

 

When will it not be acceptable for people to pursue trademark removal that are known to be slurs under the rules set forth by the Lanham act? Whether i like it or not , it will always be okay as the US code sets forth the rules by which trademarks are governed. The Trademark Trial and Appeal board is there to sort through 3rd. party claims against trademarks. The case against the Washington redskins was previously brought before both the district court and the Appeals court with the trademark being maintained based only on a "laches" defense.

 

This issue is not one being decided arbitrarily with little thought but through a careful evaluation of both sides and the law.

[RangerM]

 

When will it not be acceptable for people to pursue trademark removal that are known to be slurs under the rules set forth by the Lanham act?

Acceptable? I'd say isn't acceptable now, because the rules governing what is and isn't injurious (enough) aren't defined.

 

As I said before, come up with an "Outrage Index" like this one........

 

Not hurtful at all...........................................................Mildly hurtful............................................Hurtful to the point of becoming the downfall of the Nation

 

 

.......then start measuring every concept you can conjure.........

(note the word "measuring" because you have to be able to quantify)

 

 

Puppies and Kittens........................................................................Washington Redskins.................................................................?????????????????????????????????????????

 

 

.........and anything that falls past a certain point, gets the axe.

 

A good first step would be to come up with how to measure hurt feelings.

[MI451]

Ranger, the rules are more defined than you think, the burden of proof is deeper than outrage and your forgetting that there is case law also involved at this point.

 

The Natives that sued in 1992 and again today had to do more than say their feelings were hurt and did so. You're being obstinate out of some fear of traditions being easily challenged when it wasn't the case. These fights for removal of objectionable mascots have been going on since before I was born and it was slow to change.

[RangerM]

M, the rules change with politics. You keep forgetting that. As the Left may score a win from time to time, so too does the Right, as the political winds change.

 

When it comes to wanting "the rules" to stay the same, you can bet I'll be obstinate. It's for a reason, and for our mutual benefit (whether you believe me on that or not)

[OverLord]

 

Why the hell would you want to own a team with a name a large group of people finds offensive anyway?

 

 

I’d really love to see the calculator you used to determine that is a “large group”. They can’t even find a large group of Native Americans that find it offensive. This is from Wilki, so take it for what it is, but…

 

 

”On January 2, 2014, Public Policy Polling released a nationwide poll of registered voters regarding their feelings on NFL team and player popularity that included the following question: "Do you think the Washington Redskins should change their nickname, or not?"; Do 18%, Do not 71%, Not Sure 11%.^[72] An Associated Press poll from May 2013 found that 79 percent of those sampled support the team keeping its name.^[73] A January 2014 AP survey found that 83% of U.S. adults would not change the name.^[74]

 

And really, with the problems that are going on in the Native American communities, their leaders should be looking at solving real issues, not made up ones like this just to get on TV. Same with the US Government. Barely a week goes by that an NFLer doesn’t end up under police investigation, mostly for violent crimes, and most of those against women. A team name is getting more publicity than when a player was caught on film beating the hell out of his wife? With us just passing the 20 year anniversary of OJ Simpson killing his wife and one of the guys she was banging, maybe we should be focusing our attention elsewhere. You know, on stuff than matters.

 

While other teams may have changed their names, it was their choice to do so for whatever their reasons (under pressure I’m sure, but they weren’t sued or forced). I’m sure Snyder may have eventually (changed it), but with him being forced to do so, he’ll dig his heals in a fight like mad to keep it. And quite frankly, I don’t blame him. This is not something the Government should be involved in, and we should stop bowing down to the constant whining from a small group of people who are incapable of seeing the big picture. The people who think this is the way to go about things are the ones on the “wrong side of history”, because this is a slippery slope. You open this, then beware of what is coming next.

 

Heck, I’m more offended at the name the hockey team in Montreal calls itself. Why should they be called the Canadiens when the majority of people in the city hate everything about Canada? I guess I would launch a campaign against this, but then my mother would remind me of what she taught me when I was 3; “sticks and stones might break my bones but words will never hurt me”.

 

It makes no sense to me that you would name yourself after something you were mocking. Would you name your kid “stupid” or “idiot”? Of course not. So why do people think Redskins was meant as a bad thing? The Redskins were named after a tribe that was known for being fierce fighters. They were a proud group of warriors. This is so silly it’s stupid.

 

I would also like to mention that the University of North Dakota removed their name, the Fighting Sioux due to PC pressure. Interesting that both University of Notre Dame and the University of Illinois have not been pressured to change their names, the Fighting Irish and Fighting Illnoi respectfully. And neither has Florida State, who are the called the Seminoles. As well, North Dakota removed their logo, the Indian head, which is the same logo the Chicago Blackhawks use. If the bedwetters of our society are going to be this easily offended, then at least show some consistency and be offended by everything.

 

If the Redskins go, then shouldn’t the Kansas City Chefs as well? The Cleveland Indians? The Atlanta Braves? The Golden State Warriors? The Chicago Blackhawks? Edmonton Eskimos?