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

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

I wish your flawed logic could be used for other protests:

Women didn't file a formal grievance for centuries, why should we combat patriarchy, sexism, and violence against women over the past 100 years?! That's "out of the blue"!

Black people? I shall hear no complaints from you. I saw you picking that cotton, going to the back of the bus, doing the Jim Crow, and responding to "colored, negro, and nigger" for years. Why didn't you at least call the local paper and get your voices heard?

Various Asian and Hispanic cultures and ethnicities? Scoff. I remember the different waves of immigrants. You seemed anxious to get to the USA many generations ago. We had no idea you were facing unfair treatment. You didn't tellll anyone.

Let us not even mention LGBTQ. The way these grievances have received attention over the past years, you would think this is a brand new group of people. Who would've thought people with varying sex and gender identities have existed and been marginalized for centuries. I can't find any old complaints on Google.

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

The bolded portion is mine. Would you take issue with the NAACP trademark being denied? The "C" stands for colored, which would also be considered disparaging, correct?

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This is definitely not the same as what is being discussed in this thread. If you think it is the same, you are not familiar with the NAACP.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

No.

I am involved with the NAACP and know very well what the "C" stands for. This topic has been discussed numerous times on Greekchat.

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.

Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.

Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.

Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended. You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.

Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.

Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.

Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended. You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle.

I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.

The argument against the Redskins trademark rests on the fact that it was offensive AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED and therefore never should have been issued. I don't think you could argue the same for the 'C' in NAACP, and that would be the difference, in the eyes of the law.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

The argument against the Redskins trademark rests on the fact that it was offensive AT THE TIME IT WAS ISSUED and therefore never should have been issued. I don't think you could argue the same for the 'C' in NAACP, and that would be the difference, in the eyes of the law.

I don't think this is true. The Redskin case is a renewal. Why would it matter if it was offensive decades ago to a current renewal? Granted I work in tax law and not trademark law, but this argument might have some logic, but is unlikely to have any legal merit. Further, Dr Phil's post suggests that answering to "colored" was in the same category as sitting at the back of the bus, so wouldn't that mean it was always offensive?

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter.

Then make this argument without drawing a false analogy.