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

[Diluxi]

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.

[ASTalumna06]

Originally Posted by agzg

Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

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

Originally Posted by als463

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.

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.

Originally Posted by als463

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.

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.

Originally Posted by als463

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.

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

Bingo.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

he 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.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by ASTalumna06

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

I was describing the lengthy period between 1933 and 1988.

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.

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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by agzg

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.
Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

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.

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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

Originally Posted by Kevin

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 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.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

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

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.

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

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"?

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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

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

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 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.

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.

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.

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.

[DubaiSis]

Originally Posted by Kevin

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

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.

[33girl]

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?"