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

At some point I would think owner Dan Snyder would see the writing on the wall, but he'll probably fight this again.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...789_story.html

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/...-redskins-name

It looks like the Trademarks Office has already been down this path and lost. I would expect the Redskins lawyers to make short work of this. This is an apparent violation of their First Amendment Rights. There's a Stanford Law Review article I'm seeing on Google, it reaches the same conclusion apparently, but I don't want to pay JSTOR any money to read it.

Um seriously???

One word: Hooters.

If the patent office is going to be the morality police they need to at least have some consistency about it.

Isn't Hooters in reference to an owl? ;)

One of the differences between Hooters and Redskins is, despite people knowing to what "hooters" is in reference, there is an ability to do a bullshit play on words. There is no bullshit play on words with "redskin".

I do find the overt sexism in the title "hooters" offensive as well as the servers. They could at least have good wings.

I think there's a big difference between a play on words that refers to boobs, and a racial slur.

The statute doesn't say anything about racial slurs. It says anything thst is "disparaging." Plenty of people find Hooters disparaging. That's the first thing that came to mind, there are plenty others. I'm not against them saying that about the Redskins name, I'm against the arbitrary picking and choosing.

There have been Hooters protests. I don't know f the protests extended to the process of revoking a license.

But instead of people making everything a competition, how about the people who are offended by Hooters and other mascots/symbols see whether they can ALSO get those licenses revoked. If they can't, see why it isn't possible and THEN see whether there is inconsistency.

Ives Goddard, a senior linguistic anthropologist at the Smithsonian wrote a peer-reviewed article in the European Review of Native America Studies which concludes that the basis for the word "Redskins" is not pejorative, but was rather a term developed by Native Americans to distinguish the political and cultural differences between them and the Europeans.

http://anthropology.si.edu/goddard/redskin.pdf

If taken as true, this is a term which has been re-interpreted by Native peoples to just now be pejorative. This is sort of the frustration most Americans have with political correctness. It is such a moving target.

It doesn't matter what it meant at the time of coinage. It is offensive NOW. That argument could have been valid for why they kept the name for awhile after the tone of the word had changed, but this many years later I think we can confidently say the term isn't going to be turning positive any time soon.

They should change the name to one of the few even more offensive words in the American lexicon - Congressmen.

Why should anyone have the power to simply deem words offensive? Especially when to do that, they have to reinvent the meaning of the word to something other than what it has historically meant?

If it's offensive, it's because native peoples are ignorant of the origins of the word. Why should a multibillion dollar sports franchise throw away its history over something like that?

I'm cracking up at the name of this journal. It says it all for me.

Dear American Indians Who Find "Redskins" Offensive,

Kevin thinks he's discovered oxygen, says some of you are ignorant, and thinks his white privilege makes his opinion surpass yours.

Sincerely,
Not Surprised

That doesn't follow logically at all. It could just as easily be a term that was appropriated by the majority culture and over time used as a pejorative. Given the very complicated history of American Indian and white American culture, that seems the more plausible explanation.

Good job! In one sentence you managed to dismiss valid concerns as "political correctness" and speak for "most Americans."

News flash for you, Kevin: The meaning of the word was reinvented over a century ago. People deem the word offensive because of the way those words have actually been used.

I'm not sure which is more remarkable—the irony of this statement or the patronizing suggestion that Indians are just too ignorant to understand when they should be offended. Good thing they have you to let them know.

It's about time we had another "GC race war".

Well then, I suppose we'll need to rename Oklahoma, the name which more-less translates to "red people."

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?

Be offended all you want for whatever your own reasons are. Just don't tell anyone else what they should consider offensive.

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

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

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.

How ironic.

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.

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.


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:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2278386) If it's offensive, it's because native peoples are ignorant of the origins of the word.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kevin (Post 2278392) 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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

/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/

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.

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.

lol
Freaking hilarious!

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

But if 10% of them find something offensive, the full weight and force of the government needs to line up behind a small vocal minority and force billion dollar corporations to make changes?

And some would consider the term "Indian" offensive.:rolleyes:

As MysticCat said, read that article again.

And, yes, the government doesn't need polls and require certain percentages before acting as deemed necessary. Or did you not know that?

Just as some people within the diverse cultures and collectives consider the term "Native American" less than desirable because it is a more regional or location title that does not capture the range of cultures, ethnicities, and heritages. :rolleyes:

Since you are learning new things, research the reasons behind varied use of "American Indian" and "Native American."

Where do you get this 10% Kevin? From the article you linked? It said 90% of people surveyed, not 90% of American Indians.

Quote:

In 2004, the National Annenberg Election Survey asked 768 people who identified themselves as Indian whether they found the name “Washington Redskins” offensive. Almost 90 percent said it did not bother them. But the Indian activist Suzan Shown Harjo, who has filed a lawsuit seeking to strip the “Redskins” trademark from the football team, said the poll neglected to ask some crucial questions. “Are you a tribal person? What is your nation? What is your tribe? Would you say you are culturally or socially or politically native?” Harjo asked. Those without such connections cannot represent native opinions, she said.

Leaving aside whether the the survey had a reliable sample or asked necessary questions, the opinions of 691 people =/= the opinions of 90% of American Indians. I'll see your 691 people and raise you 70+ tribes and American Indian organizations that have officially registered opposition to use of the name "Redskins." These tribes and groups include the Cherokee Nation (Oklahoma), the Comanche Nation (Oklahoma), the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma, the United Indian Nations of Oklahoma and the Inter-Tribal Council of the Five Civilized Tribes.

MysticCat, stop ruining Kevin's routine. You know there are ONLY almost 700 people in the USA who identify as American Indian or Native American and these surveyors managed to find all of them. Ninety percent is not just of those polled. It is of ALL people within and across entire ethnic and cultural groups.

I tell you, those Weekly (Insert Group) Meetings come in handy to get all thoughts and ideas in shape just in time for surveys and for "my one (insert identity) friend is the spokesperson for her/his people and said...."

I'll try and do better, Dr. Phil. :o

#LeftOutBecauseDoesn'tGetInvitedToWeeklyMeetings

Are you on the mailing list?

For the people who believe "those people" are just being sensitive, nitpicky, and this is only about political correctness, if that was true this wouldn't be the case:
http://time.com/2894357/redskins-tra...n-interactive/

Most of the above companies and organizations are not headed by people who identify as American Indian or Native American.

The trademark is a separate issue. I am more interested in the larger issue and the audacity of comments from people like Kevin.

I can't imagine any scenario where this naming situation is acceptable. Once upon a time? MAYBE. But to me there isn't even room for discussion on the subject. The football team in our nation's capital shouldn't be named a racial slur. It doesn't matter if 1 person 1% or 100% think it's important, find it offensive, find it historical, whatever. It's wrong and should be changed.

And there is a marketing bonanza there so I really don't understand the hold up. If they change the name, the logo, the colors, etc., all of their loyal fans (and there are a lot of them) will have to go out and buy all new lavender jerseys, coffee cups, bumper stickers, and everything else. Why lavender? Lavender - lily - lily livered - Congress.

In simplest terms, the argument is "I wanna be a dick because I can make more money than by not being a dick." There's just no way you can morally justify this.

(Remember the time U of Illinois got rid of its mascot and it's whole image was destroy and students stopped applying to go there and alumni donations came to a screeching halt? Me neither.)

How about "I'm not being a dick just because someone comes out of the blue and says I'm being a dick."

Underline mine, I repeat....