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

[RangerM]

I'm not a particularly avid NFL fan, but this is wrong. This is a team with an 80-year history, and at no time have I ever heard of the name Redskins intended as a disparaging label. If it were, does that mean the team's fans want the team to lose?

 

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

 

 

 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office canceled six federal trademark registrations for the NFL’s Washington Redskins on Wednesday, saying the nickname is “disparaging to Native Americans” and cannot be trademarked under federal law that prohibits trademark protection on offensive or disparaging language.

 

This may not be the end of the world, but what kind of pansy-ass society are we becoming?

Edited June 18, 2014 by RangerM

[NickF1011]

Eh, whether you agree with this one or not, the writing is on the wall. It's an offensive term to many, just like the gap-toothed Cleveland Indians mascot and many others are.

[RangerM]

When people can be offended without taking into account the intent of the owner/user up to trumping private property rights or the rights of persons to associate with whoever they choose, then nobody is safe.

 

Are the Cleveland "Browns" racist? How do you know? If I can get enough people to say so, can I get it changed, too?

 

How about the NE Patriots? People may be offended in the same way they can be when others Pledge Allegiance.

 

Will Providence be forced to change their name from the Friars, because some atheist "feels" offended?

 

Maybe that sounds far-fetched, but it's really no more than a baby step away.

[MI451]

This was the result of the 2nd lawsuit by Native Americans. There are members of multiple tribes involved and I know that there has been pressure on the NFL by the NCAI and The Oneida nation to force a name change. Rep. Tom Cole, the only Native American currently serving (member of the Chicksaw nation) joined with congressional leaders to push for a name change.

[NickF1011]

There's absolutely no way to defend "Redskins" as being never intended as a slur. It was derogatory when it was first used. It's derogatory now. Only difference between then and now is the culture has matured enough to admit that "hey, maybe we shouldn't celebrate these old-fashioned, outdated, and sometimes offensive names anymore".

 

As for the other names you mention, should the people belonging to those groups referenced have enough grievance to have them changed as well, so be it. Plenty of other teams have been urged to change their names over the years (the most similar to this case likely being the Syracuse Orangemen), so this is nothing new.

Edited June 18, 2014 by NickF1011

[RangerM]

Where has the name "Redskins" as it pertains to the football team (and that is the point here) ever been intended as a slur?

 

I suppose Aunt Jemima's days are numbered, too.

[RangerM]

This was the result of the 2nd lawsuit by Native Americans.

When people sue because they're offended, is the very definition of frivolity, imo.

 

Unless their tribe is named "Redskins", where is the tort and what are the damages?

[MI451]

Personally I'm not invested either way as far as the name change is concerned.

Edited June 18, 2014 by MI451

[RangerM]

Personally I'm not invested either way as far as the name change is concerned.

Neither am I, but I fear the consequences.

 

When the government acts to remove (or at least damage) a person's or organization's livelihood because of some "feel good" policy, it sets a dangerous precedent. One that both my and your (political) side should fear.

[akirby]

So does this mean (if the decision is not put on hold) that anyone could sell Redskin merchandise without licensing it from the Redskins or the NFL?

[RangerM]

So does this mean (if the decision is not put on hold) that anyone could sell Redskin merchandise without licensing it from the Redskins or the NFL?

In theory, yes. (I think it is on hold under appeal--SCOTUS here we come)

 

Not that I worry for an NFL owner's pocketbook, but I see this as much a problem as Kelo vs New London; except the government has refused to protect private property rights.

 

Maybe they'll refuse to protect Ford's trademark because of ol' Henry's diatribe on the Jews.

Edited June 18, 2014 by RangerM

[akirby]

I agree. Turning down new applications is one thing. Reversing one that was already approved is entirely different.

[cal50]

Notre Dame's next up with the "Fighting Irish" logo and mascot.

Is it stereotypical labeling Irish as fighters? Is someone irish offended ?? Better yank it as well.

 

The PC BS is a little out of hand at times and the Redskins is just another example. 90% of Native American's did not have a problem with it.

 

Cut/ paste~

 

"Smithsonian Institution senior linguist Ives Goddard spent seven months researching its history and concluded that 'redskin' was first used by Native Americans in the 18th century to distinguish themselves from the white 'other' encroaching on their lands and culture.

.
"When it first appeared as an English expression in the early 1800s, 'it came in the most respectful context and at the highest level,' Goddard said in an interview. 'These are white people and Indians talking together, with the white people trying to ingratiate themselves.' "
.
A Linguists' Alternative History of 'Redskin'

[FiredMotorCompany]

Perhaps we can expect a similar government intervention to end name calling like "Gopper", "Teabagger", "Right Wing Nut", ..........

 

 

 

 

I'll be waiting to hear from the administration.

[RangerM]

Turning down new applications is one thing. Reversing one that was already approved is entirely different.

Yes and no. While I agree that if I came out with a product called, "Darkie Toothpaste" (yes, it's real) it would be offensive, I don't know that it's the government's business to make a judgement call as to whether or not my property rights (intellectual or otherwise) should be protected.

 

I don't equate protection with endorsement.

 

I wouldn't expect a person who downloads 2 Live Crew to be treated any less forcefully than someone who downloads Rush (my favorite band).

 

For the government to decide which private property deserves protection is not much different than deciding which speech or religion deserves protection, imo.

[akirby]

I can agree with that.

[MI451]

Perhaps we can expect a similar government intervention to end name calling like "Gopper", "Teabagger", "Right Wing Nut", ..........

 

I'll be waiting to hear from the administration.

Are you suing to have the trademark removed?

[MI451]

So does this mean (if the decision is not put on hold) that anyone could sell Redskin merchandise without licensing it from the Redskins or the NFL?

There's going be a run on redskin merch within hours of the announcement. LOL

[FiredMotorCompany]

Are you suing to have the trademark removed?

Not me, per se.

 

But will the government be equally protective of other's positions of perceived offense?

 

 

I think not. That would infer a balanced and impartial treatment under the law.

Edited June 19, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[MI451]

Yes and no. While I agree that if I came out with a product called, "Darkie Toothpaste" (yes, it's real) it would be offensive, I don't know that it's the government's business to make a judgement call as to whether or not my property rights (intellectual or otherwise) should be protected.

 

I don't equate protection with endorsement.

 

I wouldn't expect a person who downloads 2 Live Crew to be treated any less forcefully than someone who downloads Rush (my favorite band).

 

For the government to decide which private property deserves protection is not much different than deciding which speech or religion deserves protection, imo.

You do understand that the government set up the laws and regulations regarding intellectual property and continually decides what is able to be protected and what isn't. As in daily.

 

If the patent/trademark office isn't allowed to adjudicate the rules and regulations set up by the government then why have them at all.

[MI451]

Not me, per se.

 

But will the government be equally protective of other's positions of perceived offense?

 

I think not. That would infer a balanced and impartial treatment under the law.

The case against the Redskins is not one of first amendment concerns as it doesn't limit the ability of the Washington team to use the name in commerce. It merely cancelled their intellectual property rights to a term they used.

 

It provides an economic incentive as now anyone with the resources can print and sell Washington Redskin merchandise without fear of lawsuit.

[RangerM]

You do understand that the government set up the laws and regulations regarding intellectual property and continually decides what is able to be protected and what isn't. As in daily.

 

If the patent/trademark office isn't allowed to adjudicate the rules and regulations set up by the government then why have them at all.

And you understand the purpose of the patent/trademark office is to provide protection for property rights, right? I can't simply trademark the name "Fjord Motor Company", even if I'm Norwegian. (See? I can sound condescending, too)

 

The entire reason for filing a patent is to secure the inventors' rights to profit from their invention without someone else stealing their work. The patent office in turn, takes the application, and determines (through an investigation of other existing patents) whether or not it is "reasonably foreseeable" based on current technology, OR if it is truly unique. If it is deemed unique (and specific), and does not infringe on others' property rights, it is granted a patent.

 

The trademark office provides a similar service.

 

What the heck does "able to be protected" mean anyway? Especially as it applies to personal property. Is it ok to steal certain property (or at least allow others to steal it), and not other property?

[Mark B. Morrow]

 

 

The PC BS is a little out of hand at times and the Redskins is just another example. 90% of Native American's did not have a problem with it.

 

 

 

Really? Where did that stat come from? I'm not aware of any such polling among Native Americans.

 

I'm not a fan of political correctness as I do believe that even offensive speech should be protected, (see KKK rallies and the Westboro Baptist Church) That said, the term Redskin was a perjoritive atleast back to the founding of the football club. The native Americans were pretty much powerless back then. In addition, words and the way society feels about them change over time. It was once polite to refer to people as Negros and not unacceptable to use the slang derivitive in public. Few people would consider those terms inoffensive today. The question is the imprimatur of the government in permitting trademark protection for the name.

 

If Dan Snyder wants to retain the name, he can probably do so for some number of years before it becomes a liability. Removing the trademark protection won't stop him, it will lessen the value of the name as an asset.

[RangerM]

Really? Where did that stat come from? I'm not aware of any such polling among Native Americans.

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.

 

Removing the trademark protection won't stop him, it will lessen the value of the name as an asset.

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.

Edited June 19, 2014 by RangerM

[MI451]

Mark, it comes from a 2004 Annenberg poll. The problem with this issue is that Natives themselves are divided with different tribes having different experiences and feelings. The largest organization, the NCAI with it's million plus members opposes the name along with many Native nations.

 

It's an interesting split as some of it is very east/west in terms of whether or not they feel it's a slur.