Court ruling for a rock band could boost Redskins in trademark case
Source: Washington Post
In a major decision that could bolster the Washington Redskins legal defense of its name, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the U.S. government cant ban offensive trademarks, arguing that the practice violates the First Amendment.
The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington came in a case involving an Asian American rock band called the Slants. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had rejected a trademark for the Oregon-based musicians because it considered its name a slur. But the majority of the 12-judge court concluded that no matter how disparaging the bands name may be to Asian Americans, the First Amendment still protects the musicians speech and the speech of other trademark holders.
The courts decision is a significant boost to the Redskins in the teams battle to defend its own trademark protections. In July, a federal judge in Alexandria ordered the cancellation of those trademarks a decision the team is fighting. The judge had affirmed an earlier ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the NFL teams name denigrated Native Americans and was therefore ineligible under the decades-old Lanham Act, which prohibits trademark protection for offensive names.
Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/court-ruling-for-a-rock-band-could-boost-redskins-in-trademark-case/2015/12/22/08c3fbb2-a8e6-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html
MADem
(135,425 posts)"Slant" has multiple meanings--one is a crude slur, but others are not, e.g. Lean, angle, incline, slope, tilt, etc.
Redskin has two meanings--one is a derogatory term for Native peoples, the other describes a potato.
Unless the "Redskins" want to change their logo to a potato, they need to rethink.
azurnoir
(45,850 posts)JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)But the government can't require them to change it.
The shouldn't need a court order to do the right thing, the courteous thing.
But this decision is very obvious.
It is not the role of government to censor our speech even if we ourselves should be careful in our speech. We should want to do the right thing because we don't want to harm others and their cultural identities.
Midnight Writer
(21,769 posts)It should be a matter of common courtesy. Failing that, it should be a matter of monetary self interest.
I am not holding my breath for any of these.
davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I don't see the Washington ********' changing their name anytime soon. As much of a push as there has been it just isn't enough to get it done.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)She refers to the Redskins as the "Washington Racial Slurs"
Android3.14
(5,402 posts)There is no paradox here.
LiberalLovinLug
(14,174 posts)The Slants are an Asian rock band
Niggaz Wit Attitudes is an African American rap band
The Fags rock band have been around for a long time
The Red Skins? Is there some majority at least of native Americans that play for that team? How is this anything like these other cases?
former9thward
(32,028 posts)The court says the government can't withhold trademark status based on whether the government thinks its offensive. That is a First amendment violation. It is exactly like the Redskins.
The Fags rock band have been around for a long time Ahh, the Redskins have been around a lot longer....