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

[NickF1011]

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…

I already suggested that people look at the homepage of the NCAI, the oldest and largest representative group for native Americans.

 

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.

Actually, they have. A simple google search will reveal that. Add in some others like the Boston Celtics as well.

 

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?

Honestly? Yeah, I can see how those would be offensive to native Americans as well. Just because they've been around a long time doesn't mean they're okay.

Edited June 20, 2014 by NickF1011

[MI451]

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)

What is the reason?

[RangerM]

What is the reason?

So you and I never the sheep in a den of wolves.

[MI451]

So you and I never the sheep in a den of wolves.

That's the reason you oppose this? Some metaphorical ideology?

[RangerM]

That's the reason you oppose this? Some metaphorical ideology?

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "mission creep". That is where our Trademark office is right now. Things like "offensive speech" or "offensive names" are just ethereal concepts that have no meaning except those that people whimsically apply.

 

If you have any objection to the idea that thoughts can be crimes, then you should understand what I'm getting at.

 

It's fine if you don't agree with me. Someday, somebody will come after something you value, and then you'll object. (and no, I don't value the name "Redskins")

Edited June 21, 2014 by RangerM

[FiredMotorCompany]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "mission creep". That is where our Trademark office is right now. Things like "offensive speech" or "offensive names" are just ethereal concepts that have no meaning except those that people whimsically apply.

 

If you have any objection to the idea that thoughts can be crimes, then you should understand what I'm getting at.

 

It's fine if you don't agree with me. Someday, somebody will come after something you value, and then you'll object. (and no, I don't value the name "Redskins")

Surely, he will change tone when an ® president is in office. Mission Creep is only something the "previous administration" would be associated with.

[RangerM]

Surely, he will change tone when an ® president is in office. Mission Creep is only something the "previous administration" would be associated with.

Perhaps if the Indians ever succeed in having Mount Rushmore demolished, that may raised an eyebrow.

[MI451]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

 

I'm sure you're familiar with the idea of "mission creep". That is where our Trademark office is right now. Things like "offensive speech" or "offensive names" are just ethereal concepts that have no meaning except those that people whimsically apply.

 

If you have any objection to the idea that thoughts can be crimes, then you should understand what I'm getting at.

 

It's fine if you don't agree with me. Someday, somebody will come after something you value, and then you'll object. (and no, I don't value the name "Redskins")

 

I'm sorry but I don't believe that "mission creep" in the trademark and patent office will eventually come after something I value. I don't hold any patents or trademarks and do not currently value anyone elses. As for Mount Rushmore, I don't have any vested interest in it either way, probably much to people's chagrin.

[FiredMotorCompany]

Surely, he will change tone when an ® president is in office. Mission Creep is only something the "previous administration" would be associated with.

 

 

 

I'm sorry but I don't believe that "mission creep" in the trademark and patent office will eventually come after something I value. I don't hold any patents or trademarks and do not currently value anyone elses. As for Mount Rushmore, I don't have any vested interest in it either way, probably much to people's chagrin.

My point is made.

[RangerM]

 

I'm sorry but I don't believe that "mission creep" in the trademark and patent office will eventually come after something I value. I don't hold any patents or trademarks and do not currently value anyone elses. As for Mount Rushmore, I don't have any vested interest in it either way, probably much to people's chagrin.

The USPTO is merely an example of the problem.

 

If there is no possibility of the government imposing itself on something important (to you), then there must be very few things you value in life. I'm not sure if that's to be pitied or not.

[MI451]

My point is made.

No.

[MI451]

The USPTO is merely an example of the problem.

 

If there is no possibility of the government imposing itself on something important (to you), then there must be very few things you value in life. I'm not sure if that's to be pitied or not.

There's no need to pity me because you're taking my answer to a particular example and extrapolating outward. I understand to you this is a giant ideological issue but to me it's merely a singular point concerning the usage of a disparaging term as a trademark.

 

And as a single point issue I have no worries about mission creep because the Lanham act is as specific as it needs to be. The term redskin has a history of being used to disparage Native Americans, it was okayed in error by the office and upon review was removed. This is merely a correction to the registration of six trademarks that did not meet the law originally.

[RangerM]

I understand to you this is a giant ideological issue but to me it's merely a singular point concerning the usage of a disparaging term as a trademark.

I agree it's a singular point, but of a larger problem.

[MI451]

I agree it's a singular point, but of a larger problem.

That it was granted in the first place or that Native Americans finally were gained a voice in our society outside of reservations and casinos?

[FiredMotorCompany]

Just wonderin' why NFL, NBA, MLB and Collegiate teams would brand their teams with anything but monikers that reflect, strength, power, teamwork, winning, bravery, and devotion?

Braves, Warriors, and even Redskins. Those names were chosen BECAUSE they represented the best in competition and honor.

 

Wonder why THAT would offend anyone?

 

Would these make a better choice....?

 

Mamma's Boys, Running Bears, Fancy Pants, Teetotalers, The Timid-men, Softies, Panic Attackers,.........

[RangerM]

That it was granted in the first place or that Native Americans finally were gained a voice in our society outside of reservations and casinos?

Disagree. There is no evidence that (at the time) the name was intended as a slur.

 

Regardless, for me this is about protecting property rights, as well as speech. Both trump the "right not to be offended".

[MI451]

Disagree. There is no evidence that (at the time) the name was intended as a slur.

 

Regardless, for me this is about protecting property rights, as well as speech. Both trump the "right not to be offended".

The name IS a slur though. The law is clear in that regard. The case presented in 92 and now was much deeper than just offense. They presented testimony to the words usage throughout our countries history and clearly showed that the word WAS used disparagingly and like I said the law is clear.

[MI451]

Just wonderin' why NFL, NBA, MLB and Collegiate teams would brand their teams with anything but monikers that reflect, strength, power, teamwork, winning, bravery, and devotion?

Braves, Warriors, and even Redskins. Those names were chosen BECAUSE they represented the best in competition and honor.

 

Wonder why THAT would offend anyone?

 

Would these make a better choice....?

 

Mamma's Boys, Running Bears, Fancy Pants, Teetotalers, The Timid-men, Softies, Panic Attackers,.........

The term Redskin doesn't have a history of being used by non-native Americans to convey any of your suggestions. It was used as a slur for many many years.

[FiredMotorCompany]

The term Redskin doesn't have a history of being used by non-native Americans to convey any of your suggestions. It was used as a slur for many many years.

Recently saw an article, somewhere, that says"redskin" was coined by the Native Americans when they first met the White Man as a differentiation.

 

Again, why would anyone name a team after something the CURRENT society would consider less than the best and most proud?

 

Gay doesn't mean what it did 50 years ago. Dyke has a whole new meaning as well. But Redskin was selected because it evoked strength, tenacity, honor and courage.

 

So, are Native Americans THAT much insulted to be associated with those qualities?

 

There are small percentages of society that are offended about SOMETHING every day. The name is not intended as such. But, there ain't much heat for ending "cracker" or "honkey". Whites don't take it so personally.

[xr7g428]

MiLangDad isn't concerned because he does think that offensive thought should be punished.

 

Also, I'm part Cherokee, and not offended in any way by the name of a football team.

[MI451]

Recently saw an article, somewhere, that says"redskin" was coined by the Native Americans when they first met the White Man as a differentiation.

 

Again, why would anyone name a team after something the CURRENT society would consider less than the best and most proud?

 

Gay doesn't mean what it did 50 years ago. Dyke has a whole new meaning as well. But Redskin was selected because it evoked strength, tenacity, honor and courage.

 

So, are Native Americans THAT much insulted to be associated with those qualities?

 

There are small percentages of society that are offended about SOMETHING every day. The name is not intended as such. But, there ain't much heat for ending "cracker" or "honkey". Whites don't take it so personally.

 

let's see what qualities are "Associated" with the term redskin

 

An 1871 novel spoke of "redskinned devils." The Rocky Mountain News in 1890 described a war on the whites by "every greasy redskin." The Denver Daily News the same year reported a rebellion by "the most treacherous red skins."

 

 

"route the savages from the Illinois and Mississippi territories[.]" "The expedition will be 40 days out, and there is no doubt but we shall have to contend with powerful hordes of red skins, as our frontiers have been lined with them last summer, and have had frequent skirmishes with our regulars and rangers."

 

The proud spirit of the original owners of these vast prairies inherited through centuries of fierce and bloody wars for their possession, lingered last in the bosom of Sitting Bull. With his fall the nobility of the Redskin is extinguished, and what few are left are a pack of whining curs who lick the hand that smites them. The Whites, by law of conquest, by justice of civilization, are masters of the American continent, and the best safety of the frontier settlements will be secured by the total annihilation of the few remaining Indians. Why not annihilation? Their glory has fled, their spirit broken, their manhood effaced; better that they die than live the miserable wretches that they are.-L. Frank Baum

 

 

And while the Redskins still use a racial slur for their team name, some words in the original fight song didn't do much to deflect accusations of racism. Where the song now says, "Beat 'em, swamp 'em, touchdown! -- Let the points soar!" it once went, "Scalp 'em, swamp 'em -- We will take 'em big score / Read 'em, weep 'em, touchdown! -- We want heap more!"

 

 

Yep, you're right, they only meant the best.

Edited June 23, 2014 by MI451

[MI451]

MiLangDad isn't concerned because he does think that offensive thought should be punished.

 

Also, I'm part Cherokee, and not offended in any way by the name of a football team.

 

Not punished. Business shouldn't be able to profit off of offensive speech and the Lanham act specifically details that.

[cal50]

MiLangDad isn't concerned because he does think that offensive thought should be punished.

 

 

 

Label it as rap or modern art and its profitable or suitable for public viewing with protection, go figure.

 

If something it truly deemed offensive many people vote with their wallet and the product, company, entertainer would take a financial hit if truly deemed offensive.

If not deemed offensive people consume the product or attend events.

 

Words can hurt feelings but people hurt people and there is a distinct difference but some are trying to make them the same.

[OverLord]

I already suggested that people look at the homepage of the NCAI, the oldest and largest representative group for native Americans.

 

Again, you suggested a majority of people were offended by the name, but yet only reference a couple supposed leaders who are desperate for attention.

 

There is an Indian Reservation not far from where I live, and I have played with and against a number of Indians over the years in Minor Sports, and in Rec Leagues, and I have yet to hear one who says they are offended by any of these names. In fact, every one of them is a fan of one of those teams. It’s no different than every Irish guy I know who loves Notre Dame or the Boston Celitics. They are proud of it. There are far bigger problems the NCAI should be concerned about than a sports team honouring their ancestors by naming themselves after them.

 

But speaking of the Reservation; as you probably know, things are cheaper to buy on the Rez, including smokes and gas. So through someone, my father has a connection with a guy who sells just those things. When he goes out there, he gets the “Redskin” price, not the “whiteskin” price. Even the Natives call themselves redskins.

 

 

Actually, they have. A simple google search will reveal that. Add in some others like the Boston Celtics as well.

 

 

This just proves the ridiculousness of it. People want attention. People want money. That’s all it is. There are people offended that the Toronto Maple Leafs use the wrong grammar with their name. There are people offended that the Colorado Avalanche use an event in nature that can cause catastrophic danger and death. Teams are named after things that project great pride and honour. Strong and feared warriors or animals. Or something that represents the city’s past.

 

For the record, I’m greatly offended that Columbus named themselves after the Union soldiers in the Civil War. Oh wait, it’s only the Confederate stuff that can offended people. I take that back

Honestly? Yeah, I can see how those would be offensive to native Americans as well. Just because they've been around a long time doesn't mean they're okay.

 

 

And just because we now have a small group of people who are offended by every single thing, doesn’t mean we should bend over backwards to accommodate them. It’s the pussification of our society. Not to age myself, but growing up I hated when the Back Street Boys would be played on the radio. I distinctly remember telling my mother that I wish we could ban them. She looked at me and said there was a very easy way to avoid being offended, then reached down and changed the station. Simple right? At the end of the day, when you find yourself on the same side of the issue as Keith Olbermann, it’s time to take a step back, realize you are wrong, and move on. The Redskin protesters need to find a new hobby

[mettech]

It would be interesting to see how many Native Americans have Washington Redskins season tickets or are directly involved with the team.

 

A more appropriate name might be.. "White Man Owner, Dark Man Players on Land Taken From Redskins".