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

irishpipes · #1 06-20-2014, 03:31 PM

Quote:

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 · #2 06-20-2014, 03:34 PM

Quote:

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 · #3 06-20-2014, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

Apparently.

SigKapSweetie · #4 06-20-2014, 04:09 PM

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

12 Trademarks Declared Less Offensive Than Redskins

als463 · #5 06-20-2014, 04:23 PM

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.

agzg · #6 06-20-2014, 04:33 PM

The Sterling situation is different - the Clippers are a private organization that's part of another private organization, the NBA. So the NBA can do whatever the NBA wants to do w/r/t their code of conduct and standards for team owners.

The U.S. patent office is a government entity, yeah, but they're not *actually* forcing the NFL to act in this case, nor are they forcing the team to change their name. They're just declining to protect them from trademark infringement.

als463 · #7 06-20-2014, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by agzg

The Sterling situation is different - the Clippers are a private organization that's part of another private organization, the NBA. So the NBA can do whatever the NBA wants to do w/r/t their code of conduct and standards for team owners.

The U.S. patent office is a government entity, yeah, but they're not *actually* forcing the NFL to act in this case, nor are they forcing the team to change their name. They're just declining to protect them from trademark infringement.

I no, I knew the U.S. patent office was a government entity. I'm saying that I wasn't sure if both the Clippers and Redskins are privately-owned teams. Thank you for clarifying that the Clippers are privately-owned. I didn't think the U.S. patent office was forcing the NFL to do anything. I'm saying that I question whether anyone should have the right to tell the owner of the Clippers or the owner of the Redskins what they should and shouldn't do.

Edit: After I posted to agzg, I saw MysticCat's post. This is why I said that you are all welcome to correct me as I do not know 100% what is going on. I won't claim to. I have to say that, if Kevin is insinuating that no one should try to force anyone into doing anything, which is what I thought he was saying (could be wrong), I partially agree with that. Thank you, MC for letting me know that it's more about protection of the name than anything. I think the Clippers and the Redskins, people have putting pressure on these owners based on how they feel. Now, I'm not saying those feelings aren't warranted. I'm just curious if we should allow other people, whether 10% of the entire population or 99%, dictate what we can and cannot do. That's all.

MysticCat · #8 06-20-2014, 04:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by als463

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.

The decision doesn't say Snyder can't continue to call his team the Redskins and can't continue to use the team logos. What it does is say that the name and logo can't be trademarked, meaning Snyder can't do anything about it trademark-infringement-wise if you or I decide to start selling unlicensed Washington Redskins merchandise. So the argument would be that no one is telling Snyder what he can or can't do with his team. The message is that the government will not assist him in protecting a specific property right.

Like others, I have my doubts as to whether the decision will hold up. But I think the effort is a form of the time-honored American practice of trying to bring about change through economic incentive/pressure.

I also think there are two distinct issues here: the issue of the nickname itself and the issue of whether the PTO decision is legally correct. If the decision does turn out to be erroneous legally, that says nothing about whether the nickname is offensive and should be changed. It just means a trademark challenge was not a proper way to address the bigger issue.

ETA: Sorry. Cross-posted with agzg.

DeltaBetaBaby · #9 06-20-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

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 · #10 06-20-2014, 04:08 PM

Quote:

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.