Half & Half
 

I have to say that I am half and half about this situation. I see the side of both DrPhil and Kevin. If any of this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. This reminds me of the Donald Sterling situation. Is the guy a racist? It would appear so. Has he probably made some disparaging remarks about marginalized populations? That is what has been reported. I do not personally know him, so I will not accuse anyone of anything. I have to admit that, while he may have said some incredibly disgusting things regarding African Americans, being forced to sell his team and having the NBA tell him he is banned from attending games is a bit extreme--in my eyes. Isn't the team a private entity? This is where I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me if that is the case.

Now, we have the Washington Redskins. Once again, this can be quite offensive. In fact, it may just be coming to light in the last few years, as noted by DrPhil, because as a marginalized group of people, their voices have not been heard. While the name of the team is offensive, what I think Kevin is asserting is that no one should be able to tell someone who is a property owner of something privately owned what they should do with their team. If that is what he is saying, I have to agree.

This is a really sticky situation. On one hand, you want there to be justice for the marginalized group, whoever that may be. On the other hand, if we start allowing others to dictate what we do with our own privately-owned businesses, then where does it end? I am not saying I am for or against the name change. I am just saying that I can see how people would be on both sides of the coin.

The Sterling situation is different - the Clippers are a private organization that's part of another private organization, the NBA. So the NBA can do whatever the NBA wants to do w/r/t their code of conduct and standards for team owners.

The U.S. patent office is a government entity, yeah, but they're not *actually* forcing the NFL to act in this case, nor are they forcing the team to change their name. They're just declining to protect them from trademark infringement.

The decision doesn't say Snyder can't continue to call his team the Redskins and can't continue to use the team logos. What it does is say that the name and logo can't be trademarked, meaning Snyder can't do anything about it trademark-infringement-wise if you or I decide to start selling unlicensed Washington Redskins merchandise. So the argument would be that no one is telling Snyder what he can or can't do with his team. The message is that the government will not assist him in protecting a specific property right.

Like others, I have my doubts as to whether the decision will hold up. But I think the effort is a form of the time-honored American practice of trying to bring about change through economic incentive/pressure.

I also think there are two distinct issues here: the issue of the nickname itself and the issue of whether the PTO decision is legally correct. If the decision does turn out to be erroneous legally, that says nothing about whether the nickname is offensive and should be changed. It just means a trademark challenge was not a proper way to address the bigger issue.

ETA: Sorry. Cross-posted with agzg.

I no, I knew the U.S. patent office was a government entity. I'm saying that I wasn't sure if both the Clippers and Redskins are privately-owned teams. Thank you for clarifying that the Clippers are privately-owned. I didn't think the U.S. patent office was forcing the NFL to do anything. I'm saying that I question whether anyone should have the right to tell the owner of the Clippers or the owner of the Redskins what they should and shouldn't do.

Edit: After I posted to agzg, I saw MysticCat's post. This is why I said that you are all welcome to correct me as I do not know 100% what is going on. I won't claim to. I have to say that, if Kevin is insinuating that no one should try to force anyone into doing anything, which is what I thought he was saying (could be wrong), I partially agree with that. Thank you, MC for letting me know that it's more about protection of the name than anything. I think the Clippers and the Redskins, people have putting pressure on these owners based on how they feel. Now, I'm not saying those feelings aren't warranted. I'm just curious if we should allow other people, whether 10% of the entire population or 99%, dictate what we can and cannot do. That's all.

But, in the case of the Redskins, they're not telling them what they should do. They're telling them that they're not going to protect them from trademark infringement.

In the case of the Clippers, of course the NBA has the right to tell the owner of the Clippers what to do. The owner of the clippers either has the choice to do what they say or disaffiliate from the NBA. Like... I can either do what my GLO tells me to do or what I should do, or they can kick me out. Same thing.

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.