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

[DrPhil]

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

[DrPhil]

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

[irishpipes]

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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

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.

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

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.

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.

[33girl]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[cheerfulgreek]

Originally Posted by 33girl

If the wording is "individuals" I would think that means I can't copyright a line of underwear called DeltaBetaBaby's Stinky Poop
Underpants.

lol
Freaking hilarious!

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by 33girl

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.

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

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.

[ChioLu]

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.

[Nanners52674]

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.

[DrPhil]

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

[Cheerio]

/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/

[AOII Angel]

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.

[DrPhil]

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...."

[MysticCat]

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

#LeftOutBecauseDoesn'tGetInvitedToWeeklyMeetings