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."

Comments

Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Anonymous Coward]

-nt

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[mythosaz]

Catholics to complain about Cardinals next.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Was calling someone a "brave" considered derogatory? Same with "Blackhawks." Black Hawk was a chief of the Sauk tribe. I doubt he found his name "derogatory." Maybe we aren't reading the summary where it specifically says the problem is the name was deragatory when the trademark was granted. Neither brave nor Blackhawks are considered derogatory.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Ralph Wiggam]

The Blackhawks are named after an Army unit, which was named after a guy. There have been protests over the logo, but the name isn't particularly offensive to anyone. There is virtually no chance that any other major team name would be found "disparaging".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_(Sauk_leader)

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[machineghost]

Braves, Indians, etc. are not as offensive as Redskins (and obviously Cardinals doesn't even enter the picture). Brave or Indian means "Native American, the way your ancestors would have referred to them". Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[OakDragon]

"Funny" does not edify karma. That's why some mods will give you "interesting" or "insightful" if the joke is really good.

I fail to see how the joke is disparaging to Catholics.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Aaden42]

Who gets to decide? Appointed bureaucrats at the US Patent & Trademark Office. That’s who.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[The Grim Reefer]

I'm not sure that's in the same league as Redskin. The Blackhawks were name after a Sauk chief. Redskin has been a derogatory term for Native Americans.

What about Red Mesa High School?

Yep, Red Mesa High School calls themselves the Redskins.

It's on a Navajo reservation.

Kinda blows up that "derogatory" claim, doesn't that?

Yes, just like the rap group NWA (Nigga's With Attitude). Or that the term "nigga" has been embraced by many in poorer parts of the black community. Please feel free to use that term to describe someone while in any inner city. I'm sure once you make this rational argument everything will be fine.

Actually the term "nigger" has become so offensive that just stating it is somehow offensive. Even when not using it as derogatory term but to quote someone. I'll probably be modded a troll or flamebait just for pointing this out. Grown educated people have gotten to the point that they now sound like 6 year old children. I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I here people call it "The N-word".

Many younger people of the Jewish faith refer to each other as "heeb". There's even a "Heeb Magazine" But you can't be a (black or white) non-Hebrew and use this term.

Gays are allowed to, and do you the term "fag". But if you're heterosexual, and refer to someone as a "fag" it's homophobic.

I really hate this kind of crap. If it's alright for one group of people to use a term, but not another it's racist. Either the term is offensive, or it isn't. There's no modifier because of the color of your skin, your ethnicity, religion, or sexual orientation. And what ever happened to "sticks and stones may break my bones, but names will never hurt me"? We've turned into a society of whiny little bitches. Oh damn, someone is going to accuse me of being discriminatory toward female canines and claim that I kill puppies.(/sarcasm)

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why? Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive, and to what degree?

Haven't you been paying attention? The way it works is as simple as the minds that think this way. These are the general rules:

1. If you reference a group and their skin color is darker than yours, it's offensive.
2. The degree of offense is determined by how many shades darker their skin is than yours.
3. No claim of offense is ever illegitimate. You are to never request proof that any real harm was done. That would be insensitive.
4. Even if a minority says they hate all whites, they are never racist. If a woman hates all men she is never sexist. But everyone is equal.
5. Even though an individual can hate themselves genuinely, a black person can never be accused of hating blacks. The n-word is perfectly ok for them no matter how it is used.
6. Intent is never considered. Rather you will be judged according to a list of words. This way we discount your humanity and at the same time we know exactly how much to hate you.
7. Individuality is to be ignored. Only group identity matters.
8. The narrative that every non-white is a poor oppressed victim is never to be questioned. They are never to be held accountable when they make bad choices. Judging them by the same standard you would use to judge whites would be racist. Somehow.
9. No one belonging to any minority group should ever be encouraged to think about just how insulting and patronizing all of this is. The message that they cannot make it on their own without lots of favoritism and special treatment is a statement of their equality. Somehow.
10. No one, and I mean no one, who a) claims offense and b) is non-white should EVER under ANY CIRCUMSTANCES be told to grow up and get over it.

Supplemental rule concerning women:
1. If a woman is offended by anything a man says, the degree of the man's guilt is inversely proportional to how attractive the woman is. If she's a butt-ugly masculine bulldyke looking woman, that makes the man a real asshole.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[will_die]

Actually it was a term indians used to refer to themselves; you can easily find writing from various indian leaders who used the term.
It took on some negative connotations because it was used then used in various negative works.
Also the bounty of indian scalps was not done by the US Government it was offered by British and Mexican governments.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[Archangel Michael]

Actually, the term "Red skin" was coined by Native Americans, to distinguish between "white skin" and "black skin" people who they met. Of course, scholoarship means nothing when drumming up Faux Outrage in support of some "oppressed people", while ignoring the real oppression (still ongoing) they experience on their "reservations"

But yeah, keep promulgating the misinformation because the low information voters LOVE IT!

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually it was a term indians used to refer to themselves; you can easily find writing from various indian leaders who used the term.

Indeed. In fact, the name of the state Oklahoma means "red people" and was suggested by a Native American leader:

The name Oklahoma comes from the Choctaw phrase okla humma, literally meaning red people. Choctaw Chief Allen Wright suggested the name in 1866 during treaty negotiations with the federal government regarding the use of Indian Territory, in which he envisioned an all-Indian state controlled by the United States Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Equivalent to the English word Indian, okla humma was a phrase in the Choctaw language used to describe the Native American race as a whole.

So, the logical question is -- if we are required to change the name of a sports team for referring to the "red skins," shouldn't we also be having a discussion about changing the name of the state Oklahoma?

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[lister king of smeg]

"It's now very common to hear people say, "I'm rather offended by that", as if that gives them certain rights. It's no more than a whine. It has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. "I'm offended by that." Well, so fucking what?"
---Stephen Fry

Re: Chicago Blackhawks too?

[jd2112]

PETA suggested changing their logo to a red skinned potato, so they can keep their name and not offend anyone.
As bad as this idea is, it's probably the best idea PETA has ever had.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[sumdumass]

Not really.

This has several appeals processes to complete before they actually lose trade mark protection if they do not succeed on appeal. So the US Patent & Trademark Office can still be told to shut up.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[LifesABeach]

I've heard that Silcon Valley companies are starting a grass roots campaign against the San Francisco 49er's. Why should people make fun of really really old people?

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too?

[AthanasiusKircher]

Actually the only question here is what the term "redskins" means in means in historical context.

No, that question is barely relevant. The question is whether the term is regarded as offensive NOW. Historical discussions (some would say unfortunately) are rather irrelevant, because people tend not to care much about history. Your post seems to be an example of this.

Historically it has been a derisory term, and no-one can really deny that native Americans were derided with it while being oppressed in other ways.

Nope -- historically, it originated as a translation of terms that Native Americans (or American Indians, if you prefer) used for themselves.

And, I sincerely doubt that even when the sports team named themselves "Redskins" that they wanted to insult themselves with a derogatory term. They presumably meant it as a term to honor the heritage of a strong people (who, by extension, apparently might win at sports competitions). Mostly, the rather novel "offensiveness" of this term was generated after mid-20th century concern about "color" terms regarding race... educated folks stopped using it, leaving it only the choice term of jerks and bigots. It's kind of like "white flight," except in language.

It's like we generally don't refer to black people as "coloured" any more, because historically it has very negative connotations. Signs with "no coloureds" and the like.

Wrong again! In the mid-1800s, the word "black" became to be seen as an offensive term, since people generally don't actually have black skin. So, "colored" originated as a polite term which more accurately designated the various skin tones of real people. (It lives on in respectable names of black organizations, like the NAACP, "National Association of Colored People" -- it obviously wasn't offensive back then; it was the most proper term to use.)

"Colored" gradually gave way to "Negro" ("United Negro College Fund"), which was taken to be a more scientific description of race. Since all the educated folks stopped using the term "colored" (not for any particularly offensive reason), it was only left for hicks in the South -- hence it came to be associated with segregation and eventually became offensive. (Not because it was deliberately used as a slur, but because it became outdated except in regions populated by folks who couldn't keep up with new terms, and often tended to have worse views on race.) Meanwhile, the 1960s saw a decline of "Negro" and a new interest in rehabilitating what had been an offensive slur for over a century: "Black" became the new preferred term of the anti-establishment "Black Power" groups. With "negro" seeming old-fashioned, and some remaining hatred of the old "black" slur, other folks kept searching for something else -- hence "African American."

And so it goes. In any case, "colored" used to be a respectable term historically. Then it got on the "euphemism treadmill" as educated folk keep fleeing away from previous terms, leaving them only used by uneducated folk, which results in the sentiment that these previously acceptable terms must be offensive.

You can try to play the victim card all you like, but only simple minds are unaware of historical context.

Hilarious. Read some history of these terms, if you want (but obviously haven't). Historical context is precisely an argument AGAINST these sorts of politically-correct arbitrary linguistic arguments. Often the history of these terms is much more benign that you might think.

But none of that really matters -- history is irrelevant in arguments like this. The point is some people find these terms offensive NOW, and if enough people (or enough of the "right people," whomever we think should arbitrate such things) find them offensive, educated folks should change their usage. Language is all arbitrary and a social construct after all -- if its connotations cause enough offense that it ceases to be useful for communication, it needs to change.

Not so fast ...

[schwit1]

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

Re:My two cents

[squiggleslash]

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.

Re:I just dont get it

[ganjadude]

I would suggest you look at the people behind the token natives being pranced up there. A few of them are from where I live and guess what, they are not in good standing in the area any longer because they are being paid to pretend to be outraged right now.

Re:My two cents

[mellon]

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.

Re:My two cents

[mellon]

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.

Re:First Amendment implications?

[mellon]

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.

should rename them the "Donald Sterlings"

[Thud457]

At least they removed the "Boston" slur.

Not sure if "Atlanta" is any better.

Re:I just dont get it

[ganjadude]

we are trying to figure out the money trail now, But we can tell you that as soon as they started being quoted and going on TV they all of a sudden had all sorts of new clothes, a new car, and no reason that they should have been able to afford it. There are 2 people in my area so far that this has happened with, and the rest of us are not happy

Re:My two cents

[Hevel-Varik]

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.

Something is wrong with these reintepretations...

[mi]

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".

Re:My two cents

[rlwhite]

White Demons. I'd like to see that as a team name and logo.

Re:Big fuss over nothing

[CanHasDIY]

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.

RTFS - it's not the tribes who are complaining, it's the federal government. Specifically, the Patent Office.

As a similarly-ancestored individual (my great-grands were both Blackfoot), I'd like to point out that this is the same federal government that broke all treaties, took our lands, destroyed our crops, herds, and way of life, displaced, separated, and outright murdered our families... and they think we give a shit about sports team names?

That is fucking offensive.

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater

[Penguinisto]

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.

Full of shit

[0xdeadbeef]

Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins

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?

Re:I just dont get it

[Penguinisto]

I am more offended as a native by the cowboys (americas team) and the yankees than I am the redskins or braves

Trust me, after last year's performance, *everybody* is offended by the Cowboys.

Nobody names themselves something bad!

[DutchUncle]

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.)

Re:First Amendment implications?

[Desler]

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.

Re:First Amendment implications?

[Desler]

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...