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
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.
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
There's no free speech issue here. The Redskins can call themselves whatever they want. What they can't do, necessarily, is count upon the full force of government to help them out if they want to prevent other people from using the same term in connection with their business, if they choose to use a particular category of name, as they are doing.
It's just a Trademark. That's all.
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
Trademarks are a constitutionally permitted infringement on free speech. Refusing to alllow a trademark can't possibly infringe on free speech: it does the exact opposite.
All rights you have are always subject to the will of the government. That's why it's so important to have a constitution where those rights are specifically laid out, and why it's so important for citizens to participate in civic discourse and not just expect the thing to run itself.
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
Hardly a free speech issue.
Specifically a free speech issue, in a way that "money is speech" doesn't even come close to.
A department of the US government has denied equal protection to an entity incorporated in the US on the basis of the political implications of what they want to say. Short of "free speech zones", you don't get a much more solid 1st amendment issue.
And they have history on their side - They won on appeal for exactly that reason last time. And they will win again this time.
Personally, I consider this whole issue much ado about nothing - The indians lost to the white demons; if a sports team wants to name themselves after history's losers, hey, their call.
This the Government using its ever increasing means to enforce thought crime. Heresy. Name has been around since 1933. This a means to an end and the end isn't trademark law and you know it. It's a bunch of assholes in a office using the trademark authority of the United States of America to enforce against heresy. You are just spouting talking points.
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.
White Demons. I'd like to see that as a team name and logo.
really? al jazera is on time warner ;)
1) Joking aside, Al Jazeera America is actually a fairly solid and unbiased source of hard news on subjects outside of the Mideast, and even when the topic is the Mideast, they have been (so far) fairly even-handed. Sometimes it's scary as hell how much less biased they are when you compare them to CNN, MSNBC, Fox, et al. Even covers a lot more topics than the Big Three, which means they carry a wide variety of stories that don't revolve around the latest [Outrage || Scandal]. It's like the BBC, but without the Downton Abbey accents.
2) In reply to GP: Yes, you certainly CAN have a "The Jihad Channel" on cable if you can get a company to carry it. Now your local cable provider may prohibit it, but that's not a 1st Amendment issue, since the 1st Amendment only restricts government, not private entities.
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
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?
White Demons. I'd like to see that as a team name and logo.
How about "Fighting Irish"?
Do you have ESP?
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.)
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...
So what about free speech? They can still call themselves the "Redskins".
This is about trademarks, and the interests protected are somewhat different than those protected by the First Amendment.
The Redskins can still sell "Redskins" merchandise -- that's your first Amendment protections at work. What they can't do now is stop other people from using the word "Redskins" on merchandise of the type the Redskins organization sells, licenses or endorses. They may have copyright or trade dress claim if that merchandise borrows too much from their products. I don't know, this touches on areas of IP law which as an IT guy I've never had to worry about.
The Redskins logo is not affected by this ruling, IIRC. Somebody will have to show that depicting an Indian with feathers is offensive, which is going to be tough. So the Redskins organization retains a monopoly on products bearing their logo. Even if they lose on that they still have copyright on the logo. There may be a few peculiar situations where people can do something under copyright they couldn't do under trademark, because it doesn't involve any actual copying. But their logo T-shirt, beer glass, coaster, key-chain etc. business is perfectly safe.
So I don't see this development as something that is likely to hit the Redskins football team where it hurts -- in the pocketbook.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
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.