Redskins lose trademark

Never agree to 3 points on top of the vig.
User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 537 times

Redskins lose trademark

Postby Rob Lister » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:18 am

USPTO wrote:“We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,”
http://tracking.si.com/2014/06/18/washi ... cancelled/

Wow.

Maybe this belongs in the politics forum.

I don't really have an opinion as to whether it is derogatory.

Spoiler:
Image


I do have an opinion as to whether the USPTO should have the authority to reverse their prior rulings; that's bullshit.

I suppose the Redskin owners can also challenge it; they'd probably win if they took it up high enough. I don't think they'll fight it.

Here's a link to the USPTO page that links to the official decision and the media package.
http://www.uspto.gov/news/DCfootballtrademark.jsp

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65487
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2960 times
Been thanked: 1892 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Doctor X » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:45 am

I thought about this a bit given that the owner claims the name was originally "in honor" of some of the first Native American football players who played for the team. He also claims that there are Native American organizations who like it, "it is the most popular team on reservations," blah . . . blah . . . blah.

I would ask this: would someone feel comfortable approaching a Native American he does not know and call him "Redskin?"

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 67954
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 971 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:37 pm

No derogatory trademarks allowed?

Talk about legislating from the bench.

This is not a good precedent. No trademark is safe if the party in power dislikes the trademark holder.

Whatever works and fuck rule of law.
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 67954
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 971 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:41 pm

Someone should do anime porn of Aunt Jemima having a threesome with Uncle Ben and the Cream O' Wheat guy.

The trademarks are derogatory, therefore null and void.

Any nice person want to invest?
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
shemp
Posts: 4627
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:16 pm
Title: gnat
Has thanked: 441 times
Been thanked: 317 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby shemp » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:45 pm

Next up: Spic and Span.
"It is not I who is mad! It is I who is crazy!" -- Ren Hoek

"[... it seems most strange that... ] the Creator of Heaven and Earth resorted to the womb of a certain Jewish lady, grew there for nine months and was born as an infant, and afterwards grew up and was betrayed into the hands of his enemies who sentenced him to death and executed him, and that afterwards... he came to life and returned to his original place. The mind of a Jew, or any other person, simply cannot tolerate these assertions. If you have listened all your life to the priests who have filled your brain and the marrow of your bones with this doctrine, and it has settled into you because of that accustomed habit. [I would argue that if you were hearing these ideas for the first time, now, as a grown adult], you would never have accepted them." -- Rabbi Moses ben Nahman, defending the Talmud at the Disputation of Barcelona, July 1263.

"God is the supreme excuse for human adults to absolve themselves of any obligation to preserve natural resources for their own children during their lifetime." -- Gene Ray

User avatar
ed
Posts: 31768
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 11:52 pm
Title: Rhino of the Florida swamps
Has thanked: 384 times
Been thanked: 646 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby ed » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:06 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:Someone should do anime porn of Aunt Jemima having a threesome with Uncle Ben and the Cream O' Wheat guy.
<-----Rastus
- new minimalist ethos -

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32187
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1411 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Grammatron » Thu Jun 19, 2014 5:50 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:No derogatory trademarks allowed?

Talk about legislating from the bench.

This is not a good precedent. No trademark is safe if the party in power dislikes the trademark holder.

Whatever works and fuck rule of law.


This is within the rule of law. There was a challenge brought up, based on existing rules. The challenge was deemed to be sufficient to take away the trademark. However, there's an appeal process during which Redskins retain their exclusive trademark.

Never mind that this is the second time this happened. Never mind that the appeal in the first case lasted 17 years. Never mind that the appeal was upheld on a technicality. Never mind this is basically refiling of that case.

But hey, don't let ignorance stop you from righteous indignation.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 67954
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2395 times
Been thanked: 971 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Thu Jun 19, 2014 6:06 pm

Grammatron wrote:But hey, don't let ignorance stop you from righteous indignation.


So my anime porn idea won't fly? :evil:
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
Witness
Posts: 13687
Joined: Thu Sep 19, 2013 5:50 pm
Has thanked: 1557 times
Been thanked: 2093 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Witness » Fri Jun 20, 2014 1:02 am

NSFW:
Image

User avatar
grayman
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sun Feb 11, 2007 3:43 am
Location: A little further north.
Has thanked: 92 times
Been thanked: 149 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby grayman » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:01 am

Image
You will be electroplated. Resistance is potential divided by current! - Dr. Matt

Cogito, ergo Deus non est.

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32187
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1411 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Grammatron » Fri Jun 20, 2014 6:45 pm

I've been thinking about this. Why are Redskins so resistant to changing their name, would it not bring in millions of dollars in merchandising revenue from fans buying all new gear? It is sure to offset any cost they would incur in changing their name on the all their commercial properties and products.
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65487
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2960 times
Been thanked: 1892 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Doctor X » Sat Jun 21, 2014 3:04 am

Owner is stupid and very, very rich.

Such people do not like to hear they cannot do something. Oppositional behavior they never discarded.

In the rain.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!

User avatar
Tiosylanyl
Posts: 5007
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:31 am
Title: The Three-eyed Raven
Location: Beyond the Wall
Has thanked: 31 times
Been thanked: 267 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Tiosylanyl » Sun Jun 22, 2014 11:15 pm

I have a solution to the problem.

Image

User avatar
Anaxagoras
Posts: 20202
Joined: Wed Mar 19, 2008 5:45 am
Location: Yokohama/Tokyo, Japan
Has thanked: 1237 times
Been thanked: 1011 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Anaxagoras » Mon Jun 23, 2014 2:22 am

Grammatron wrote:I've been thinking about this. Why are Redskins so resistant to changing their name, would it not bring in millions of dollars in merchandising revenue from fans buying all new gear? It is sure to offset any cost they would incur in changing their name on the all their commercial properties and products.


Because then they would need a new song too? "Hail to the Redskins" would have to be replaced.

Just looked it up. They actually changed it in the 1980s. These were the previous lyrics:

The previous lyrics (1962 to '80s) were:

Hail to the Redskins!

Hail, victory!

Braves on the warpath!

Fight for Old D.C.!

Scalp 'em, swamp 'um

We will take 'um big score

Read 'um, Weep 'um, touchdown

We want heap more

Fight on, fight on, till you have won

Sons of Washington

Rah! Rah! Rah!


Nah, nothing insensitive about that! So, they changed the song in the past.

Reminds me of what used to be acceptable though: Have you seen Disney's Peter Pan lately? Whole lot of that same fake "Indian talk" you used to see everywhere (lots of "heap big", etc.). No way Disney would do that with a new movie today.
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare

User avatar
Rob Lister
Posts: 19427
Joined: Sun Jul 18, 2004 7:15 pm
Title: Incipient toppler
Location: Hiding under ed's bed
Has thanked: 530 times
Been thanked: 537 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Rob Lister » Thu Dec 24, 2015 12:04 pm

Looks like they might well get it back.

In a different case brought before United States Court of Appeals involving a trademark for an Asian-American band called The Slants (notice I made that italic :) ) they ruled that the USPTO has no right to make the determination that a trademark is disparaging.

Federal Circuit Overturns Prohibition On "Disparaging" Trademarks
The government cannot refuse to register disparaging marks because it disapproves of the expressive messages conveyed by the marks. It cannot refuse to register marks because it concludes that such marks will be disparaging to others. The government regulation at issue amounts to viewpoint discrimination, and under the strict scrutiny review appropriate for government regulation of message or viewpoint, we conclude that the disparagement proscription of §2(a) is unconstitutional. Because the government has offered no legitimate interests justifying §2(a), we conclude that it would also be unconstitutional under the intermediate scrutiny traditionally applied to regulation of the commercial aspects of speech.
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/defa ... 2015.1.PDF

This is prime Supreme Court fodder right here, boys. It is pretty easy to guess how each and every member will rule; a pretty even split with the lower court upheld.

The NFL might be able to do something however. I straddle the fence on this one. And boy! do my balls hurt.

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65487
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 2960 times
Been thanked: 1892 times

Re: Redskins lose trademark

Postby Doctor X » Thu Dec 24, 2015 4:02 pm

Our Man McCann from Deflategate Fame has written on this. While not exactly endorsing the use of the name and all of that, he agrees with the basic principles.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!


Return to “Sports & Recreation”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 0 guests