Slashdot Mirror
Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks
BillCable writes: Politico reports, "In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the 'Washington Redskins' team name because it was found to be 'disparaging' to Native Americans. 'We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be canceled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,' the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote. The panel voted 2-1 in favor of the decision." Perhaps this move will speed up the inevitable name change, which was expected within the next few years."
-nt
As much as they should change their names, should the USPTO allowed to cancel trademarks which they don't like? What about free speech?
From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time.
That took 10 years
Get 'em while they're hot. Official (looking) Redskin Jerseys.
We will also make complete Redskins uniforms for you little league team.
Call Q.T. Industries - Beijing.
They just need to become the Washington Redskin Potatoes. Problem solved, and with a little butter and some salt, you've got a hearty side dish.
Liberals are always talking about live and let live. they get all upset when people dont respect their lifestyle. but at the same time they attack those who they disagree with
I am of native descent. The onodaga tribe in NY is where I live. Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins. We are more offended by the liberal white man pretending to be offended in our name. I am sure there are other natives who disagree with me but what happened to live and let live. If you dont like it, root for the other team! simple as that! I am more offended as a native by the cowboys (americas team) and the yankees than I am the redskins or braves
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
not all speech is free. you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box. incendiary or hateful speech is prohibited by any number of state and local ordinances, and various equal rights legislations. fact is, and you can ask multiple schools about their athletic departments, the native American population has had enough, as other people of color have, and they are using all challenges possible to douse the loaded stereotypes. the Washington NFL team has got to change, and the screws are tightening under their thumbs.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Nobody has a right to be un-offended.
And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur. No one is stopping them from continuing to use the name, and now they can't stop anyone else from using it also.
So why are you so mad about it? Freedom has increased, yet you're the one offended.
I'm part "Native American", enough to join the tribe if I wanted. But I refuse to be associated with a people who are so thin-skinned that they get offended at the drop of a hat. Yes, "redskin" WAS a term of derision, but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of, a word of honor.
If we have to change the name of the Washington Redskins, I say we change all the names of things in this country that have native origins. Just think of how many states, cities, counties, rivers, mountains and such have native-derived names. Fuck it! Change ALL of them!
How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.
At least they removed the "Boston" slur.
Not sure if "Atlanta" is any better.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
If the name Redskins was "disparaging". They wouldn't be naming their team after them
while
No laws have changed, but what was once perfectly acceptable — indeed, a registered trademark — no longer is. And the other way around.
"Redskins" are just a name, but there are worse signs of the changes... For example, University of Hawaii recently prohibited a student group to hand-out copies of the Constitution. The administrators' reasoning was: "This isn’t really the ’60s anymore" and "people can’t really protest like that anymore".
Obviously, the First Amendment has not changed in 50 years, it is just being reinterpreted. And so is the understanding of "disparaging".
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
The general counsel for the Onondaga Nation is rather offended by it:
http://www.syracuse.com/news/i...
Your "spiritual leader" is no fan of it either:
http://www.syracuse.com/kirst/...
So I'm going to go out on a limb and say you're full of shit. What's up with your spelling of "onodaga" anyway?
Equal Protection.
Hell, if someone wants to trademark a swastika, they should be perfectly able to. The market will decide the rest.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
“This decision is a step forward for Indian Country & for all Americans who champion tolerance.”
Since when does tolerance == anti-bigotry? It seems to me like they're not being very tolerant of bigotry. Has this now become one of those words that doesn't really mean what it really means, like "organic" or "chemical?" I mean, I'm pretty tolerant of people of different races, sexual orientations, nationalities, etc, but I'm intolerant of bigots, assholes, idiots, liars, people driving slow in the left lane, and a variety of others. So, I don't consider myself tolerant, but I do consider myself to be anti-bigotry, and I'm having a bit of a tough time reconciling these terms.
I can understand some native americans being upset about this kind of names, and I can also understand others (posting above) saying they don't care. What I find strange is that people usually want to name their teams something positive and powerful (other than frat league when you name your team the Nads so that people can cheer Go, Nads!). The various Indian-themed sports team names were all intended to be powerful positive *winning* labels, not insults, to the teams they were being applied to; and by inference positive references, not insults, to their namesakes. Consider how strange it is to name your new team after what was once considered a hated enemy - who lost! Clearly the might and power of that enemy is being honored to some degree. (Though George Carlin might compare it to suburbs where we cut down all the trees and then name the streets in their memory.)
US Code, Title 15, Section 1052.
It's not an Equal Protection issue. Trademarks only exist because Congress passed laws to create them under their Commerce Clause authority. They are not a right.
It's not. These people are just completely ignorant of both statutory and case law around trademarks. Trademarks are not First Amendment speech. Never have been never will be. Trademarks exist at the behest of Congress and the Trademark Act. Congress could revoke every single registered trademark if they wanted to be simply abolishing the Trademark act.
As I posted in another part of this discussion thestatutes on trademarks has allowed for both the refusal of trademarks that are disparaging.
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/usc...
whitey, crackers, or The N Word. So it's not the same. There is only one live US trademark with some form of the N word - the rest are no longer active - so it seems the consistency is there on the part of USPTO. Did you expect an instrument of the US government to continue to approve of something that a class of people find derogatory? White people don't get to overrule what other groups want to be called. Each class gets to decide. And if members of that class are not internally consistent, I may never understand it, neither may you, but that's not a pass for others to do the same. How much Al Jazeera America have you watched? Known Islamic radicals John Siegenthaler, Nicole Mitchell, Michael Eaves and Ray Suarez notwithstanding, are they really that polarized? OK seriously, you may be conflating Islamic point-of-view with pro-Islam warmongering ("jihad"). Telemundo presents media from a Latino point of view, but I don't think anyone is suggesting they are promoting some sort of violent Latino takeover.
"Win treats sysadmins better than users. Mac treats users better than sysadmins. Linux treats everyone like sysadmins."
It's Al Jazeera, and it's infinitely better than any US-based news channel.
My great grandfather was Mohawk. I typically say I'm part Mohawk, not indian or native American.
What is going on is the idea that a race of people were/are in the process of genocide against the native population of a continent for over 500 years. The whites have dehumanized the various peoples to the point where individual customs and ways are nothing more than trendy new-age fads. Rather than a proud people, the whites depict them as mascots and comic book characters. When they take offense to being dehumanized, they are told to get over it.
The whites did not win the Americas (stupid name), it was the european diseases that did. If the natives were not in decline because of new diseases, the europeans would never have token hold. The whites merely capitalized on continent wide pandemic that they brought here.
So, if the people who had democratic representation and centralized trade routes BEFORE the magna carta, whos only offense is being in the way of white european aggression, say stop dehumanizing them, maybe it would be a good gesture.
The market can't decide. In granting the trademark, the government has given the owner a monopoly on the use of the mark. Government-granted monopolies are the antithesis of the free market.