U.S. patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And this is political correctness, be offended about that remark all you want, but that's what this is.

No, this is you, who has minimal knowledge of the subject matter, thinking you can speak authoritatively about American Indians. Lest we be reminded of previous race threads where you displayed your lack of knowledge of racial and ethnic minorities.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just don't tell anyone else what they should consider offensive.

How ironic.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even 90 percent of Native Americans think you're all full of shit.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

Uh oh, data on 90% of American Indians. Uh ohhhhhhhhh...here we were thinking there was a Weekly American Indian Meeting in which the diverse cultures of American Indians got together and agreed on everything.

Kevin, you are clearly learning new things about this topic as you go along. That's wonderful for you but your new knowledge doesn't translate to everyone else's ignorance.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

And this is political correctness, be offended about that remark all you want, but that's what this is. Who is next? The Minnesota vikings for their stereotypical portrayal of Scandinavians? The Indians? The Braves? Shall the pirates off the Somali coast bristle at the cultural appropriation undertaken by the Tampa Bay Buccaneers?

You went to law school. I'm sure you have some critical thinking skills. This would be a good time to use them.

Last time I checked, Vikings, Pirates and Buccaneers didn't refer to ethnic groups that have been, to put it mildly, not treated well by those in authority in America. And with the Minnesota Vikings, it's the descendants of the Scandivanians to whom you refer who have promoted the image.

As for Indians or Braves, I think I've said before that I disagree with the idea that all Indian-related names have to go. Context matters.

Even 90 percent of Native Americans think you're all full of shit.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

I would never deny that American Indians are not monolithic in their opinions on this issue. But if the quoted is what you got from that article, you didn't read it carefully at all.

ETA: Meanwhile, please explain the consistency between these two quotes:

Originally Posted by Kevin

If it's offensive, it's because native peoples are ignorant of the origins of the word.

Originally Posted by Kevin

Just don't tell anyone else what they should consider offensive.

As best I can tell, no one should tell you what you should be consider offensive, but it's okay for you to tell others what they should not find offensive.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I would never deny that American Indians are not monolithic in their opinions on this issue. But if the quoted is what you got from that article, you didn't read it carefully at all.

He's in a hurry to find information to support his argument.

The funny thing is Kevin is the only one being "politically correct" based on his belief that if EVERYONE isn't offended by something, NO ONE should be offended and it should all be silenced to prevent ruining the smiley warm fuzzy kumbaya.

Newsflash to Kevin, American Indians can debate amongst themselves but don't need to reach a consensus and definitely don't need permission from non-American Indians to be offended.

[irishpipes]

I am curious - I understand that everyone who has posted, except Kevin, finds the term redskins offensive, but do you also think the trademark should have been denied? Those are two separate issues. They should be able to name their team the Washington Retards if they want. Freedom of speech should protect offensive speech as well as other types. The marketplace can determine if the public wants to support offensive expression.

[Nanners52674]

I don't get why they are fighting so damn hard to hold onto a name and a logo that never mind being offensive isn't that aesthetically pleasing anyway. Let it go.

And for the people who think they shouldn't have to change because their a huge sports team with hundreds of thousands of fans, with a great following and a beloved mascot. And to take that away the organization would have to completely rebrand itself. It's been done.

Syracuse did something similar in the 70's when it got rid of its "saltine warrior" mascot because it was offensive to Native Americans. So it has been done before, successfully.

[DrPhil]

I hear you, Nanners. Remember the most recent college mascot thread?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am curious - I understand that everyone who has posted, except Kevin, finds the term redskins offensive, but do you also think the trademark should have been denied? Those are two separate issues.

I agree that they are two separate issues. I haven't commented on the patent issue because I don't know nearly enough about patent law to have an opinion on whether it's a good or bad decision under patent law.

I don't think it's a straightforward Free Speech issue. Snyder and the team are still free to use the name. What the decision means is they don't "own" the name or the logos, so they can't sue someone for selling unlicensed merchandise.

I agree about letting the marketplace handle it, but arguably, that' sweat the patent decision is about.

[Cheerio]

/slight lane swerve...

I've never enjoyed the maroon-and-mustard coloring of Washington Redskin uniforms. University of Minnesota, that also goes for your gold and maroon colors.

Portugal's maroon 2010 World Cup uniforms were so ugly I pretended the words to their national anthem (as played before each match involving Portugal) included the final lines: "They're UGLY, they're UGLY, our uniforms are really really UGLY! They're ugly, they're ugly, our uniforms are really really bad!"

end lane swerve/

[AOII Angel]

Have y'all seen the commercial put out against the Redskins name during the NBA playoffs? It was powerful. It made me hold my breath.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am curious - I understand that everyone who has posted, except Kevin, finds the term redskins offensive, but do you also think the trademark should have been denied? Those are two separate issues. They should be able to name their team the Washington Retards if they want. Freedom of speech should protect offensive speech as well as other types. The marketplace can determine if the public wants to support offensive expression.

US trademark law does not allow for the trademarking of terms that bring individuals into contempt. I'm not sure if you are asking for opinions on whether it should allow it, or if you are asking whether they should have applied that standard in this particular case, but it is indeed part of the law.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

US trademark law does not allow for the trademarking of terms that bring individuals into contempt. I'm not sure if you are asking for opinions on whether it should allow it, or if you are asking whether they should have applied that standard in this particular case, but it is indeed part of the law.

If the wording is "individuals" I would think that means I can't copyright a line of underwear called DeltaBetaBaby's Stinky Poop Underpants. There's not one person named Redskin objecting to this.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If the wording is "individuals" I would think that means I can't copyright a line of underwear called DeltaBetaBaby's Stinky Poop
Underpants.

lol
Freaking hilarious!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If the wording is "individuals" I would think that means I can't copyright a line of underwear called DeltaBetaBaby's Stinky Poop Underpants. There's not one person named Redskin objecting to this.

The statute (15 U.S.C. 1051(a)) reads, in relevant part:

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute . . . .

The questions for me are how "disparage" is interpreted and how "persons" is defined and interpreted. I believe that it is defined broadly enough to include groups of people, but I'm not positive about that.

[ChioLu]

As I work for the "parent company", I think I can predict the outcome.

This will be based on the law -- and, I believe, also money.

If Dan Snyder's legal team uses the Stanford Law Review article (and they will), and the European Review of Native America Studies (and they will), and cite the precedent of the Trademarks Office already losing on this exact subject, plus multitudes of studies/facts/testimonies not listed here, the Washington Redskins will have much in their favor legally.

Because of how the U.S. law system works, take the emotion out of it.
Are there cases where the outcome was NOT what I believe should have happened, based on my emotion and any knowledge of the facts, but based on how the attorneys tried the case -- yes -- many, many times.

And the team owner can afford some really good lawyers.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ChioLu

Because of how the U.S. law system works, take the emotion out of it.

Absolutely. And I agree with most everything else you said. I'll say, though, that if the patent lawyers are doing their job, they'll know that there is stuff out there showing how even during the 19th Century (after the time discussed in the ERNAS article), "redskin" was taking on derogatory layers of meaning.

Meanwhile, if anyone is going to rely on what the ERNAS article says about the origins of "red man" or "redskin" (and I have no reason to doubt what that article says), I'd encourage them to look into the history of how what is now the Washington NFL team came to be called the "Redskins"—and I'm not just talking about "Lone Star" Dietz.