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.
Hybrid Mode
