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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I don't believe a complaint was filed. The Redskins filed to renew their trademark.

No. According to the decision, five American Indians brought a cancellation proceeding.

Originally Posted by Kevin

No, I'm saying that they are not offended, except for a small minority.

For the fifth time, Kevin, what's the basis for "small minority"?

Originally Posted by Kevin

I've already shared the poll. Even if you think it has a few flaws, 90% of self-identified Native Americans think you're full of shit.

I thought so. Good grief, Kevin, read. In that poll, 768 people self-identified as American Indian. Of those 768, 77 people said the the name offended them. Polling issues aside, that does not mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the team name offensive, as you keep saying; it means that only 10% of people surveyed (10 years ago) who self-identified as Indian found it offensive.

Frankly, Kevin, the only thing full of crap is your argument—you've made plenty of room for the crap with all the holes in your logic.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I thought so. Good grief, Kevin, read. In that poll, 768 people self-identified as American Indian. Of those 768, 77 people said the the name offended them. Polling issues aside, that does not mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the team name offensive, as you keep saying; it means that only 10% of people surveyed (10 years ago) who self-identified as Indian found it offensive.

Frankly, Kevin, the only thing full of crap is your argument—you've made plenty of room for the crap with all the holes in your logic.

Even if you doubled or tripled or quadrupled the percentage, you're still talking a minority.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Even if you doubled or tripled or quadrupled the percentage, you're still talking a minority.

And you're talking speculation. Speculation is not evidence that backs up your argument. And in this instance, the only evidence you've cited is this poll that doesn't support your argument and one article about the origin of the term "redskin" that doesn't support your argument.

Meanwhile, you seem to ignore any evidence—such as the positions taken by over 70 tribes, inter-tribal organizations and American Indian organizations—that counters your position.

I'll try it this way: You've reminded us before that you are from Oklahoma and are "surrounded by Native people." If one of those Native people was your client and you were representing him in court, would you think it acceptable or professional to refer to him, either to his face or to the court, as a "redskin"?

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

And you're talking speculation. Speculation is not evidence that backs up your argument. And in this instance, the only evidence you've cited is this poll that doesn't support your argument and one article about the origin of the term "redskin" that doesn't support your argument.

You're speculating that the poll is overwhelmingly wrong, aren't you?

Meanwhile, you seem to ignore any evidence—such as the positions taken by over 70 tribes, inter-tribal organizations and American Indian organizations—that counters your position.

Tribal governments do not really speak for their members and will tend to take the most PC position because that's the safest politically.

If one of those Native people was your client and you were representing him in court, would you think it acceptable or professional to refer to him, either to his face or to the court, as a "redskin"?

I wouldn't chance a breach of decorum and though I might not really find the term offensive, I wouldn't want to risk offending the Judge or anyone else. I don't get paid what I get paid to take pointless risks.

That said, there's an entirely different standard for where the weight and force of the federal government should be applied to businesses solely because some outlier of a minority deems the trademark offensive.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You're speculating that the poll is overwhelmingly wrong, aren't you?

Not at all. I'm just not trying to force the poll to say more than it actually does.

Tribal governments do not really speak for their members and will tend to take the most PC position because that's the safest politically.

Well, I'll grant that elected or governing bodies sometimes do not reflect the opinions of those who elect them or of their members. What is your evidence that is the case here?

I wouldn't chance a breach of decorum and though I might not really find the term offensive, I wouldn't want to risk offending the Judge or anyone else. I don't get paid what I get paid to take pointless risks.

I didn't ask you if you would do it or if it was a pointless risk. I asked if you if you thought it would be appropriate or professional.

Of course, it might be the same answer—no, because it might offend someone. Which leads me to wonder whether it's a real risk if only an "outlier of a minority" finds the word offensive, as you keep saying.

That said, there's an entirely different standard for where the weight and force of the federal government should be applied to businesses solely because some outlier of a minority deems the trademark offensive.

Really? Denying a trademark is imposing the "weight and force of the federal government"? Really?

And you still haven't backed up your claim that it's only an "outlier of a minority" who find the name offensive. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

Not at all. I'm just not trying to force the poll to say more than it actually does.

You seem to be dismissing it completely.

Well, I'll grant that elected or governing bodies sometimes do not reflect the opinions of those who elect them or of their members. What is your evidence that is the case here?

Tribal elections don't turn on whether the candidates care about the Redskins football team. They turn on much more personal issues such as tribal gaming, business directions, tribal benefit priorities, etc.

I didn't ask you if you would do it or if it was a pointless risk. I asked if you if you thought it would be appropriate or professional.

If it was the early 90s and silk print ties were still okay, I'd have no objection wearing to wearing a Washington Redskins tie.

Of course, it might be the same answer—no, because it might offend someone. Which leads me to wonder whether it's a real risk if only an "outlier of a minority" finds the word offensive, as you keep saying.

That's the only data we have. Feel free to discard it, but until you have better data, I'm the only one bringing facts into this discussion.

And why would I not take that risk? Because I don't take people's money to fix their problems and expose them to unnecessary risk.

Really? Denying a trademark is imposing the "weight and force of the federal government"? Really?

Denying the protection of the law has the same consequence in reality as a cease and desist order. I'm sure you don't need the consequences of what the patents and trademarks office has done here explained.

And you still haven't backed up your claim that it's only an "outlier of a minority" who find the name offensive. Repeating it over and over doesn't make it so.

I gave you the poll. The only poll there is on the subject. I would think if the Oneida Nation or any other Nation thought the poll might come out significantly different, they might pony up the cash to do another poll.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

You seem to be dismissing it completely.

Not completely, though it does appear to me have flaws. But my beef is with you extrapolating what it says to mean that only 10% of all American Indians find the word offensive. The poll doesn't support that assertion. It says what it says; it doesn't say what you say it says.

If it was the early 90s and silk print ties were still okay, I'd have no objection wearing to wearing a Washington Redskins tie.

Well, that's a dodge. I asked you whether it is appropriate or professional to call an American Indian a "redskin," not whether wearing Redskins merchandise (which I have also worn in the past) would be appropriate or professional. See the polls to which I linked above for examples of people who seem to understand the difference.

That's the only data we have.

No, it's not. See above. And learn some history. Do you know the history behind the name Washington Redskins?

Feel free to discard it, but until you have better data, I'm the only one bringing facts into this discussion.

Hardly. You're taking the few facts you've brought in and trying to make them bear much more weight than they can.

Denying the protection of the law has the same consequence in reality as a cease and desist order. I'm sure you don't need the consequences of what the patents and trademarks office has done here explained.

Of course I don't. I just think "full weight and force of the federal government" is hyperbolic. It's not like the national guard has been called in to enforce desgregation. If the trademarks are inappropriate under trademark law, then the law has simply been applied to so state. The business consequences will fall where they may. Happens all the time.

In any event, you seem to miss the (very big) point. The PTO may indeed have gotten it wrong. It may well be that the Redskins are entitled at this stage of things to have their trademarks intact. Even if that is so, that doesn't mean that people, both American Indians and others, who find the name uncomfortable at best and offensive at worst have no reasonable basis for thinking so. Those opinions are not just rooted in ignorance of the origin of the word "redskin," as you have stated.