Mavric Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ruled today in Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., a suit brought by a group of Native Americans seeking to have the Washington Redskins' trademarks canceled on the grounds that the name is disparaging. The plaintiffs achieved a major victory: the board ruled against the team. A 1992 suit over the trademark was thrown out on a technicality, since some of the plaintiffs had waited too long after turning 18 to file. Since then, at least a dozen new trademark applications involving the word "Redskins" have been denied, the most recent a filing for hog rinds that the board declared "derogatory" and "offensive." But Blackhorse v. Pro-Football Inc., first filed in 2006, put the already-existing registrations on the line. <snip> The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all. And that's to say nothing of the symbolism of the feds deeming the team's corporate identity unfit for its imprimatur. Deadspin Link to comment
74Hunter Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I'm not going too tell people what is offensive or derogatory, but I'm not sure how in can be constitutional for a government agentcy to decide what is offensive or derogatory in this case. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How is changing the name really going to help us indians? Is it going to be a moral victory? Is that moral victory going to provide jobs, better health care, and improve the day to day life of your average native american? Instead of forcing him to change his name, force him to donate significant sums of money to help those on reservations who need it. This story is just so white people, or the apples, can feel better about themselves at the end of the day... Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not going too tell people what is offensive or derogatory, but I'm not sure how in can be constitutional for a government agentcy to decide what is offensive or derogatory in this case. Even if the organization is seeking special protection from the government? 1 Link to comment
Junior Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Steve King (R-IA) tweets: Obama raids Redskins by weaponizing USPTO. Cancels Redskins logo! Free people will not tolerate a Kim Jong POTUS. https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/479398307832160256 That guy is nuttier than a Planter's factory. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 Steve King (R-IA) tweets: Obama raids Redskins by weaponizing USPTO. Cancels Redskins logo! Free people will not tolerate a Kim Jong POTUS. https://twitter.com/SteveKingIA/status/479398307832160256 That guy is nuttier than a Planter's factory. That's magnificent. These people are impossible to parody. 1 Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 it's ironic the gov't "stepping in" to decide to help us indians? Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't really know why anyone cares about this . . . on either side. Link to comment
Junior Posted June 19, 2014 Author Share Posted June 19, 2014 Honestly, if you were writing a script for a movie and included some of these Tea Party people as characters, you'd probably get told you've made them too unbelievable as human beings. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I don't really know why anyone cares about this . . . on either side. because you've got the causeheads that need to rally around something, and Snyder keeps giving them fuel to throw on the fire... Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How is changing the name really going to help us indians? Is it going to be a moral victory? Is that moral victory going to provide jobs, better health care, and improve the day to day life of your average native american? Instead of forcing him to change his name, force him to donate significant sums of money to help those on reservations who need it. This story is just so white people, or the apples, can feel better about themselves at the end of the day... I don't see where anyone can FORCE him to do anything. But I am curious about your stance on this. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the term Redskin is derogatory and insulting. Would you want to take money from someone that insulted you to your face while they lined your bank account? Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I find it kind of funny that some indians are all up in arms about this name but then turn around and basically bastardize their traditions while they promote gambling and other things all in the name of the good ol dollar. There are a hell of a lot bigger issues in the indian population than if a sports team uses some word that they think is offensive. Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 How is changing the name really going to help us indians? Is it going to be a moral victory? Is that moral victory going to provide jobs, better health care, and improve the day to day life of your average native american? Instead of forcing him to change his name, force him to donate significant sums of money to help those on reservations who need it. This story is just so white people, or the apples, can feel better about themselves at the end of the day... I don't see where anyone can FORCE him to do anything. But I am curious about your stance on this. Let's just say for the sake of argument that the term Redskin is derogatory and insulting. Would you want to take money from someone that insulted you to your face while they lined your bank account? I think it's stupid the gov't trying to get involved. People are so worried about offending other people, it turns them into apologetic wussbags. If they do rule that the term is derogatory, then what about the N word? What about those that think it's ok to use it (Wilbon and Barkley), is it ok because they're black? Washington is the capital, and provides gov't funding to the BIA, so it's not that big a deal... Link to comment
74Hunter Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not going too tell people what is offensive or derogatory, but I'm not sure how in can be constitutional for a government agentcy to decide what is offensive or derogatory in this case. Even if the organization is seeking special protection from the government? Which organization, the team, the NFL, or another organization? Fill me in please. Link to comment
carlfense Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I'm not going too tell people what is offensive or derogatory, but I'm not sure how in can be constitutional for a government agentcy to decide what is offensive or derogatory in this case.Even if the organization is seeking special protection from the government?Which organization, the team, the NFL, or another organization? Fill me in please. According to the name on the case, Pro Football, Inc. Link to comment
Recommended Posts