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

[als463]

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.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by als463

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.

But, in the case of the Redskins, they're not telling them what they should do. They're telling them that they're not going to protect them from trademark infringement.

In the case of the Clippers, of course the NBA has the right to tell the owner of the Clippers what to do. The owner of the clippers either has the choice to do what they say or disaffiliate from the NBA. Like... I can either do what my GLO tells me to do or what I should do, or they can kick me out. Same thing.

[als463]

Originally Posted by agzg

But, in the case of the Redskins, they're not telling them what they should do. They're telling them that they're not going to protect them from trademark infringement.

In the case of the Clippers, of course the NBA has the right to tell the owner of the Clippers what to do. The owner of the clippers either has the choice to do what they say or disaffiliate from the NBA. Like... I can either do what my GLO tells me to do or what I should do, or they can kick me out. Same thing.

But, does the NBA really have the right to do that? We keep double-posting. Whoops! MC also explained the trademark infringement and I appreciate you doing it as well. It's one thing not to protect them. I guess it's another thing, like 33girl pointed out earlier, to pick and choose what is and is not offensive. It reminds me of how the NCAA does things. Some things are okay and get by while other things unrelated are sanctioned. <-- I'm sure you know where that last bitter remark comes from regarding the NCAA.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by als463

But, does the NBA really have the right to do that? We keep double-posting. Whoops! MC also explained the trademark infringement and I appreciate you doing it as well. It's one thing not to protect them. I guess it's another thing, like 33girl pointed out earlier, to pick and choose what is and is not offensive. It reminds me of how the NCAA does things. Some things are okay and get by while other things unrelated are sanctioned. <-- I'm sure you know where that last bitter remark comes from regarding the NCAA.

Sure they do. They're a private organization. "Follow our rules or do what the majority says to do or get kicked out." It's part of their charter.

EDIT: It's kindof like the Unanimous Agreements with the NPC. Had they written into the UA "Organizations that do XYZ thing will have their membership in the NPC revoked" - well, they could do that. The NBA had that provision, that the owners could vote to remove an owner. They "forced" him to sell in the respect that the team would be much less valuable if it wasn't part of the NBA. Essentially, sell, or the Clippers are out.

[als463]

Originally Posted by agzg

Sure they do. They're a private organization. "Follow our rules or do what the majority says to do or get kicked out." It's part of their charter.

EDIT: It's kindof like the Unanimous Agreements with the NPC. Had they written into the UA "Organizations that do XYZ thing will have their membership in the NPC revoked" - well, they could do that. The NBA had that provision, that the owners could vote to remove an owner. They "forced" him to sell in the respect that the team would be much less valuable if it wasn't part of the NBA. Essentially, sell, or the Clippers are out.

Okay, I get this. Thanks for the information. What was the basis of ousting the guy though? From what I understand, so please correct me if I am wrong, some of the hateful things he said were in private and not while at the games or towards his players. It's not like he did something awful during a game. If he said those hateful things, saying them in the privacy of his own home or with his mistress, albeit nasty and cruel, does not seem like a good enough reason to oust someone.

Sorry. I don't want to derail this thread. I was just comparing the two situations.

[agzg]

Originally Posted by als463

Okay, I get this. Thanks for the information. What was the basis of ousting the guy though? From what I understand, so please correct me if I am wrong, some of the hateful things he said were in private and not while at the games or towards his players. It's not like he did something awful during a game. If he said those hateful things, saying them in the privacy of his own home or with his mistress, albeit nasty and cruel, does not seem like a good enough reason to oust someone.

Sorry. I don't want to derail this thread. I was just comparing the two situations.

Lots of things I do in private could get me kicked out of the social organizations I'm a member of. If it's in the charter, they can do it. This is more like that than an employment situation.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by als463

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.

You know good and well that Kevin is arguing much more than that. If this thread was primarily about trademark and government control, I would have lost interest on page 1.

[33girl]

I actually think this is going to blow up like whoah and have the opposite effect of enlightening the owner. So their "official" trademark isn't protected. There's nothing to stop the team from financing things under the table that are potentially offensive and then saying ohhh, we didn't do that, we can't enforce our trademark any more.

[als463]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You know good and well that Kevin is arguing much more than that. If this thread was primarily about trademark and government control, I would have lost interest on page 1.

Hey now! I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been saying something like that. As I said earlier, I could easily be wrong and he may not have been saying what I thought he was saying so, I don't want to assume. You know I'm not one to come to his side and say he is right. I just think that, sometimes, Kevin may actually have a somewhat valid point--even if I don't always think he's the nicest about sharing his view.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by als463

Hey now! I'm trying to give him the benefit of the doubt that he may have been saying something like that. As I said earlier, I could easily be wrong and he may not have been saying what I thought he was saying so, I don't want to assume. You know I'm not one to come to his side and say he is right. I just think that, sometimes, Kevin may actually have a somewhat valid point--even if I don't always think he's the nicest about sharing his view.

Any valid point he may have made about government control and trademarks was lost on his racial nonsense.