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

[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.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ChioLu

Because of how the U.S. law system works, take the emotion out of it.

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.