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

[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.