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

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am referring specifically to the trademark, not its usage in general. The Redskins aren't being forced to stop using the team name, they just can't protect it under trademark. How is that not exactly the same as the NAACP? The NAACP would be free to continue to use the name, as it is and always has been used in a positive context that is not offensive to most people. But, should they be allowed to continue to trademark it? After all, once you give the government that power to make the "disparaging" determination, won't they be pressed to exercise it evenly? Doesn't that give the government way more power than they should have? It takes away our right to determine which things offend and which do not.

You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.

Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.

Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.

Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended. You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle.

[irishpipes]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

You cannot discuss this without discussing the usage in general.

Certainly you see the difference between 1) a group of white people using what is considered a racial slur against American Indians; and 2) a predominantly Black organization using a word for a specific reason and continuing to use the word in the predominantly Black organization's name despite internal debate as a reminder to never forget from whence we came, out of respect for the context of the founding, and (some would argue) respect for the different races and ethnicities ("colors") of people who have worked with and been served by the NAACP.

Debating whether there should be a trademark issue with the NAACP is silly when the context is completely different and the internal discussions regarding the use of "colored" in NAACP has not led to trademark concerns. Therefore this is a moot issue and if you don't see the difference, I must respectfully ask you to sit over there with Kevin.

Trademark decisions are not the government telling us when to be offended. You want to debate the government trademark issue and I only care about people being able to fight against what they deem offensive. The legality of that is for the legal people to battle.

I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

Tell me again what happens when we let the majority determine the rights of the minority?

Actually you have it backwards. Here we have a sliver of a segment of a minority determining the rights of the Redskins franchise by having better connections in a certain D.C. office.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I very much see the difference between the Redskins and the NAACP in terms of usage. I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter. If the government interprets this, they would be forced to treat the NAACP the same way, even though the context is clearly different. These should be social issues, and beyond the grasp of the government. People and companies have a right to be stupid, ignorant, racist, sexist, whatever. They will be treated accordingly by society and the free market. The government should not be defining what is or is not offensive.

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.

[Kevin]

In 1933, what protests were there about the name of the organization?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Kevin

Here we have a sliver of a segment of a minority . . . .

I'll ask a fourth time, Kevin: What's your basis for saying it's "a sliver of a segment"?

[irishpipes]

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]

Originally Posted by irishpipes

I am concerned with arming the government with discretion in this type of matter.

Then make this argument without drawing a false analogy.

[DrPhil]

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.

[DrPhil]

Originally Posted by Kevin

In 1933, what protests were there about the name of the organization?

You need a history lesson. Seriously.


/sorry for triple post, too lazy to combine posts

[DeltaBetaBaby]

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]

Originally Posted by DrPhil

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

Apparently.

[agzg]

Wouldn't a determination that the C in NAACP was disparaging come out of someone filing a complaint with the patent office, presumably someone affected by that disparagement? I mean, it's not like the patent office just woke up yesterday and decided "oh hay, Redskins is offensive! Let's look up all their trademarks and tell them to suck it!" Someone filed a complaint.

Also, general point: 1988 was 26 years ago. That's hardly "out of the blue."

[irishpipes]

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.

[SigKapSweetie]

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

12 Trademarks Declared Less Offensive Than Redskins