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

[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

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?

See what happens with false analogies? People get confused and the point gets lost.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

See what happens with false analogies? People get confused and the point gets lost.

Apparently.

[SigKapSweetie]

I saw this article posted on facebook and it made me think of this thread.

12 Trademarks Declared Less Offensive Than Redskins

[als463]

I have to say that I am half and half about this situation. I see the side of both DrPhil and Kevin. If any of this is incorrect, please feel free to correct me. This reminds me of the Donald Sterling situation. Is the guy a racist? It would appear so. Has he probably made some disparaging remarks about marginalized populations? That is what has been reported. I do not personally know him, so I will not accuse anyone of anything. I have to admit that, while he may have said some incredibly disgusting things regarding African Americans, being forced to sell his team and having the NBA tell him he is banned from attending games is a bit extreme--in my eyes. Isn't the team a private entity? This is where I could be wrong, so please feel free to correct me if that is the case.

Now, we have the Washington Redskins. Once again, this can be quite offensive. In fact, it may just be coming to light in the last few years, as noted by DrPhil, because as a marginalized group of people, their voices have not been heard. 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.

This is a really sticky situation. On one hand, you want there to be justice for the marginalized group, whoever that may be. On the other hand, if we start allowing others to dictate what we do with our own privately-owned businesses, then where does it end? I am not saying I am for or against the name change. I am just saying that I can see how people would be on both sides of the coin.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

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?

I have no idea why that matters, but it's in the opinion. See the third paragraph here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-patent...-redskins-name

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

I have no idea why that matters, but it's in the opinion. See the third paragraph here:

http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/us-patent...-redskins-name

Sorry I wasn't clear - obviously this opinion agrees with what you stated. I'm not disputing that is in the opinion. I'm just saying that it is another reason why I think the opinion won't hold up.

[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.