But, does the NBA really have the right to do that? We keep double-posting. Whoops! MC also explained the trademark infringement and I appreciate you doing it as well. It's one thing not to protect them. I guess it's another thing, like 33girl pointed out earlier, to pick and choose what is and is not offensive. It reminds me of how the NCAA does things. Some things are okay and get by while other things unrelated are sanctioned. <-- I'm sure you know where that last bitter remark comes from regarding the NCAA.

Sure they do. They're a private organization. "Follow our rules or do what the majority says to do or get kicked out." It's part of their charter.

EDIT: It's kindof like the Unanimous Agreements with the NPC. Had they written into the UA "Organizations that do XYZ thing will have their membership in the NPC revoked" - well, they could do that. The NBA had that provision, that the owners could vote to remove an owner. They "forced" him to sell in the respect that the team would be much less valuable if it wasn't part of the NBA. Essentially, sell, or the Clippers are out.

Okay, I get this. Thanks for the information. What was the basis of ousting the guy though? From what I understand, so please correct me if I am wrong, some of the hateful things he said were in private and not while at the games or towards his players. It's not like he did something awful during a game. If he said those hateful things, saying them in the privacy of his own home or with his mistress, albeit nasty and cruel, does not seem like a good enough reason to oust someone.

Sorry. I don't want to derail this thread. I was just comparing the two situations.

Thank you.

You know good and well that Kevin is arguing much more than that. If this thread was primarily about trademark and government control, I would have lost interest on page 1.

I actually think this is going to blow up like whoah and have the opposite effect of enlightening the owner. So their "official" trademark isn't protected. There's nothing to stop the team from financing things under the table that are potentially offensive and then saying ohhh, we didn't do that, we can't enforce our trademark any more.

Hey now! I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been saying something like that. As I said earlier, I could easily be wrong and he may not have been saying what I thought he was saying so, I don't want to assume. You know I'm not one to come to his side and say he is right. I just think that, sometimes, Kevin may actually have a somewhat valid point--even if I don't always think he's the nicest about sharing his view.

Any valid point he may have made about government control and trademarks was lost on his racial nonsense.

Dan Snyder is looking at the team name and the trademaek through a business prism. He is not ignorant of the social issue, just not interested.

Lots of things I do in private could get me kicked out of the social organizations I'm a member of. If it's in the charter, they can do it. This is more like that than an employment situation.

If anyone was curious about the USPTO's reasoning, they've had the following clause in the books for a few decades now:

"If during the course of examination of a patent application, an examiner notes the use of language that could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, he or she should object to the use of the language as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.3 which proscribes the presentation of papers which are lacking in decorum and courtesy. The inclusion of such proscribed language in a Federal Government publication would not be in the public interest. Also, the inclusion in application drawings of any depictions or caricatures that might reasonably be considered offensive to any group should be similarly objected to."

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/s608.html

Obviously this passage refers to patents but it stands to reason they would use similar standards for trademark evaluation.

Thank you. I'm wondering if Kevin knows what "out of the blue" actually means.

The problem isn't what Kevin is saying in relation to the legal proceedings of the patent dispute, it's what he's saying about American Indians "not being permitted" to be offended, and that any who are offended shouldn't be allowed to force change.

I agree to a certain extent that what the NBA did was extreme, but the remarks he made recently are only a small number of offenses he's made toward minorities. Look up the history of things he's done; I'm surprised he wasn't called out nationally prior to those recordings being released.

Bingo.

And that the only reason anyone could be offended is ignorance of the origin of the word "redskin."

Which is funny since he was learning new things as he posted.

I was describing the lengthy period between 1933 and 1988.

No, I'm saying that they are not offended, except for a small minority.

Repeating falsehoods doesn't make them become true.

I've already shared the poll. Even if you think it has a few flaws, 90% of self-identified Native Americans think you're full of shit.

I don't believe a complaint was filed. The Redskins filed to renew their trademark.

No. According to the decision, five American Indians brought a cancellation proceeding.


For the fifth time, Kevin, what's the basis for "small minority"?

I thought so. Good grief, Kevin, read. In that poll, 768 people self-identified as American Indian. Of those 768, 77 people said the the name offended them. Polling issues aside, that does not mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the team name offensive, as you keep saying; it means that only 10% of people surveyed (10 years ago) who self-identified as Indian found it offensive.

Frankly, Kevin, the only thing full of crap is your argument—you've made plenty of room for the crap with all the holes in your logic.

Even if you doubled or tripled or quadrupled the percentage, you're still talking a minority.

And you're talking speculation. Speculation is not evidence that backs up your argument. And in this instance, the only evidence you've cited is this poll that doesn't support your argument and one article about the origin of the term "redskin" that doesn't support your argument.

Meanwhile, you seem to ignore any evidence—such as the positions taken by over 70 tribes, inter-tribal organizations and American Indian organizations—that counters your position.

I'll try it this way: You've reminded us before that you are from Oklahoma and are "surrounded by Native people." If one of those Native people was your client and you were representing him in court, would you think it acceptable or professional to refer to him, either to his face or to the court, as a "redskin"?

You're speculating that the poll is overwhelmingly wrong, aren't you?

Tribal governments do not really speak for their members and will tend to take the most PC position because that's the safest politically.

I wouldn't chance a breach of decorum and though I might not really find the term offensive, I wouldn't want to risk offending the Judge or anyone else. I don't get paid what I get paid to take pointless risks.

That said, there's an entirely different standard for where the weight and force of the federal government should be applied to businesses solely because some outlier of a minority deems the trademark offensive.

Not at all. I'm just not trying to force the poll to say more than it actually does.

Well, I'll grant that elected or governing bodies sometimes do not reflect the opinions of those who elect them or of their members. What is your evidence that is the case here?


I didn't ask you if you would do it or if it was a pointless risk. I asked if you if you thought it would be appropriate or professional.

Of course, it might be the same answer—no, because it might offend someone. Which leads me to wonder whether it's a real risk if only an "outlier of a minority" finds the word offensive, as you keep saying.

Really? Denying a trademark is imposing the "weight and force of the federal government"? Really?

And you still haven't backed up your claim that it's only an "outlier of a minority" who find the name offensive. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

Shouldn't the fact that I am also offended count for anything? Yes, the people for whom the offense is personal have a right to ask for names like this to be changed. But they aren't the only ones. I should also be able to say I find it offensive and have that matter. This "small minority" of native Americans who are offended shouldn't be the only ones who get to count. The rest may have other issues to contend with that are higher priority, like staying alive in a dying culture on dead land with poor education, poor leadership and poor health and healthcare. I would contend that the people with the luxury of time, health and wealth to care about this issue can and should count for the vast number of people who just simply don't have it in em. If there is a vast silent majority that rocks on the fact that the football team representing our nation's capital has an AWESOME name, then the small minority in that set who has the time and ability should speak up. Crickets? Hmmmmm.

Any movement by any minority doesn't work if the only ones involved in it are the wealthiest and most prvileged. All that does is make people say "well shoot, they're doing fine, why are they complaining?"

Only the obtuse and un-researched believe this.

People need a history lesson and contemporary lesson on politics and movements.

Organizations like the NAACP, NPHC GLOs, and the Urban League were among the voices of civil rights and components of women's rights and worker's rights movements. The founders and majority of earlier members of these organizations were among a privileged group and, some people like WEB DuBois would argue, intellectual elite.

You seem to be dismissing it completely.

Tribal elections don't turn on whether the candidates care about the Redskins football team. They turn on much more personal issues such as tribal gaming, business directions, tribal benefit priorities, etc.

If it was the early 90s and silk print ties were still okay, I'd have no objection wearing to wearing a Washington Redskins tie.

That's the only data we have. Feel free to discard it, but until you have better data, I'm the only one bringing facts into this discussion.

And why would I not take that risk? Because I don't take people's money to fix their problems and expose them to unnecessary risk.

Denying the protection of the law has the same consequence in reality as a cease and desist order. I'm sure you don't need the consequences of what the patents and trademarks office has done here explained.

I gave you the poll. The only poll there is on the subject. I would think if the Oneida Nation or any other Nation thought the poll might come out significantly different, they might pony up the cash to do another poll.

Well, in connection with that thought, here's an interesting poll conducted by the Washington Post last year, and a story on it. It's a poll of Washingtonians, and I find these results interesting:

• 61% of those surveyed said they like the team name "Redskins."
• 66% percent said the name should not be changed (50% feel strongly that it should not be changed), while 28% said it should be.
• 55% of those who do not want to see the name changed thought that "redskin" is an inappropriate way to describe an American Indian.
• 82% said a name change would make no difference to their support of the team, and 6% said it would make them more of a fan. 10% said it would make them less of a fan.

I find it interesting that a majority of those who don't want to see the name changed do not think "redskin" is an appropriate way to refer to American Indians. In a similar poll of Washingtonians commissioned by the Oneida Tribe, 59% of respondents, none of whom were Indian, said that an American Indian would have a right to feel offended if called a "redskin."

This cognitive dissonance suggests to me that holding on to the name "Washington Redskins" has much to do with familiarity, sentiment and tradition, and little to do with actual belief that the name can't be considered offensive.

Not completely, though it does appear to me have flaws. But my beef is with you extrapolating what it says to mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the word offensive. The poll doesn't support that assertion. It says what it says; it doesn't say what you say it says.

Well, that's a dodge. I asked you whether it is appropriate or professional to call an American Indian a "redskin," not whether wearing Redskins merchandise (which I have also worn in the past) would be appropriate or professional. See the polls to which I linked above for examples of people who seem to understand the difference.

No, it's not. See above. And learn some history. Do you know the history behind the name Washington Redskins?

Hardly. You're taking the few facts you've brought in and trying to make them bear much more weight than they can.


Of course I don't. I just think "full weight and force of the federal government" is hyperbolic. It's not like the national guard has been called in to enforce desgregation. If the trademarks are inappropriate under trademark law, then the law has simply been applied to so state. The business consequences will fall where they may. Happens all the time.

In any event, you seem to miss the (very big) point. The PTO may indeed have gotten it wrong. It may well be that the Redskins are entitled at this stage of things to have their trademarks intact. Even if that is so, that doesn't mean that people, both American Indians and others, who find the name uncomfortable at best and offensive at worst have no reasonable basis for thinking so. Those opinions are not just rooted in ignorance of the origin of the word "redskin," as you have stated.

Bump

Not that I want to get the $#!+ stirring with Kevin & Dr. Phil again, but there are some alternate names that the Washington NFL team could become.

Washington Warriors - some logos look similar to the current logo, some look more like a WWII army man. A "trademark prospector" has filed for trademark for this name, so Dan Synder would have to buy it from him.
http://deadspin.com/will-this-random...gto-1593785958
The website, www.warriors.com is the NBA Golden State Warriors. The websites washingtonwarriors.com and dcwarriors.com are for sale.

Second most discussed option is Washington Renegades - this was the old Arena football team name and a current Washington DC Division III Rugby club name.

Here are some of the many potential names for the Washington Football Club, including "The Washington Football Club"!
http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/shutdo...2468--nfl.html

http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/wash...iors-renegades

The Daily Show just had a segment on the debate, with Redskins fans discussing the topic with Native Americans. It did not go well for the current mascot supporters:
https://tv.yahoo.com/news/did-native...133300770.html

:p:p

OH PLEASE GOD IN HEAVEN let them pick "Renegades" so the Steelers have to stop playing that $@#&ing song. I hate it so much.

Can we still SCALP tickets?