Redskins will "never" change name

[74Hunter]

 

 

 

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.

Maybe I'm not catching your drift, which special protection are we referring to?

[carlfense]

 

 

 

 

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.

Maybe I'm not catching your drift, which special protection are we referring to?

 

Trademark protection. They aren't saying that the Washington Redskins are required to change their name.

[74Hunter]

 

Maybe I'm not catching your drift, which special protection are we referring to?

 

Trademark protection. They aren't saying that the Washington Redskins are required to change their name.

Gotcha now, I guess I didn't see the Redskins' request to be any more special than the Cowboys, or Twins, or any of the other millions or billions of trademarks or patents that are out there.

 

While what you say is true, has any other patent or trademark been denied on the basis of being offensive? If not, how can this one be denied legally?

[carlfense]

While what you say is true, has any other patent or trademark been denied on the basis of being offensive? If not, how can this one be denied legally?

I don't think that this is even the first time that the term "Redskin" has been denied on the basis of being offensive or derogatory.

 

It's been the law for 50+ years. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

[74Hunter]

 

While what you say is true, has any other patent or trademark been denied on the basis of being offensive? If not, how can this one be denied legally?

 

I don't think that this is even the first time that the term "Redskin" has been denied on the basis of being offensive or derogatory.

 

It's been the law for 50+ years. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

Interesting. If true then I'll agree with you, who cares. I guess I skimmed the link you thankfully provided, and unless I missed it, I didn't see the words offensive or derogatory. I saw immoral listed, so maybe they are saying that Redskins falls under that.

 

Either way, I guess it seems a little odd to me, a little too much government intrusion. Others may disagree.

[carlfense]

 

 

While what you say is true, has any other patent or trademark been denied on the basis of being offensive? If not, how can this one be denied legally?

I don't think that this is even the first time that the term "Redskin" has been denied on the basis of being offensive or derogatory.

 

It's been the law for 50+ years. http://www.bitlaw.com/source/15usc/1052.html

Interesting. If true then I'll agree with you, who cares. I guess I skimmed the link you thankfully provided, and unless I missed it, I didn't see the words offensive or derogatory. I saw immoral listed, so maybe they are saying that Redskins falls under that.

 

Either way, I guess it seems a little odd to me, a little too much government intrusion. Others may disagree.

 

Not my area of expertise. I think NUance would be able to shed some light on it. Patent law is a lot closer. Haha.

[walksalone]

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

[carlfense]

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

That's not really what is happening. The organization is seeking governmental protection of their brand. The government is saying that they won't offer that protective status. The Washington Redskins can keep their name forever and the government won't do anything to stop them or force a change.

 

That said, if this stands the Washington Redskins will almost certainly change their name because they don't want anyone else to make money off of their brand.

[huKSer]

Maybe Donald Sterling will buy the Redskins?

[HUSKER FREAK]

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

Does this really surprise you? The Gov't knows how to live our lives better than we do, just sit back and let it happen.

[Junior]

Yea, Freak, you don't really understand the situation. What's funny is that you are lamenting the government intrusion when the Redskins are asking for government help to protect their brand. So why is it that you don't think THAT is government intrusion??

[zoogs]

That's "corporate freedom", hehe.

[NUance]

 

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

That's not really what is happening. The organization is seeking governmental protection of their brand. The government is saying that they won't offer that protective status. The Washington Redskins can keep their name forever and the government won't do anything to stop them or force a change.

 

That said, if this stands the Washington Redskins will almost certainly change their name because they don't want anyone else to make money off of their brand.

 

 

I would rephrase the bolded part slightly. The organization has had trademark protection for over a half century. They want to avoid having the government take away that protection.

 

Part of the problem is that the perception of the term Redskin may have changed since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1966, the application date of the trademark application for "The Redskins", the term was neutral, more akin to the word negro than to the slang n-word. I personally think the Redskins organization have some good arguments. For example, they point out that there are quite a few predominantly native American high schools using the Redskins mascot. If the term was disparaging it seems unlikely that native American high schools would embrace it as their own. Then again, as a former resident of Washington DC and fan of the Redskins, my opinion is hopelessly biased.

 

 

 

/ I actually didn't live in D.C. I lived just across the river Potomac River, in northern Virginia.

[carlfense]

 

 

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

That's not really what is happening. The organization is seeking governmental protection of their brand. The government is saying that they won't offer that protective status. The Washington Redskins can keep their name forever and the government won't do anything to stop them or force a change.

 

That said, if this stands the Washington Redskins will almost certainly change their name because they don't want anyone else to make money off of their brand.

 

 

I would rephrase the bolded part slightly. The organization has had trademark protection for over a half century. They want to avoid having the government take away that protection.

 

Part of the problem is that the perception of the term Redskin may have changed since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1966, the application date of the trademark application for "The Redskins", the term was neutral, more akin to the word negro than to the slang n-word. I personally think the Redskins organization have some good arguments. For example, they point out that there are quite a few predominantly native American high schools using the Redskins mascot. If the term was disparaging it seems unlikely that native American high schools would embrace it as their own. Then again, as a former resident of Washington DC and fan of the Redskins, my opinion is hopelessly biased.

 

 

 

/ I actually didn't live in D.C. I lived just across the river Potomac River, in northern Virginia.

 

Like I said. Get NUance in here. We're a long ways away from criminal law. Haha.

[NUance]

 

 

 

Legality or not, isn't it a bit worrisome that the gov't is stepping in and trying to have an effect on the outcome of this?

That's not really what is happening. The organization is seeking governmental protection of their brand. The government is saying that they won't offer that protective status. The Washington Redskins can keep their name forever and the government won't do anything to stop them or force a change.

 

That said, if this stands the Washington Redskins will almost certainly change their name because they don't want anyone else to make money off of their brand.

 

 

I would rephrase the bolded part slightly. The organization has had trademark protection for over a half century. They want to avoid having the government take away that protection.

 

Part of the problem is that the perception of the term Redskin may have changed since the beginning of the 20th century. In 1966, the application date of the trademark application for "The Redskins", the term was neutral, more akin to the word negro than to the slang n-word. I personally think the Redskins organization have some good arguments. For example, they point out that there are quite a few predominantly native American high schools using the Redskins mascot. If the term was disparaging it seems unlikely that native American high schools would embrace it as their own. Then again, as a former resident of Washington DC and fan of the Redskins, my opinion is hopelessly biased.

 

 

 

/ I actually didn't live in D.C. I lived just across the river Potomac River, in northern Virginia.

 

Like I said. Get NUance in here. We're a long ways away from criminal law. Haha.

 

 

Well, I have to admit that trademark law is a bit outside my field these days. I mostly do patent stuff. I've been turning away trademark work for three or four years now.