I totally didn't see this coming. Wow.

How the hell is it that nobody is going after the Cleveland Indians, whose mascot is far more offensive?

same thing.

just changing the mascot should be the sensible non-controversial thing to do.

which is offensive, stupid and wrong, but it's not steeped in the language of genocide the way the other name is.

I don't disagree with you, just on the surface a goofy looking Chief Wahoo is a hell of a lot more offensive than a proud warrior.

stereotype of us. What's really bad about the Washington name is that it was a term used in the genocide of my ancestors. The term "red skin" originated with a bounty on Native Americans. For every "red skin" brought in, they got paid. And they didn't mean bringing in live folks. That's why the name is so heinous. It's associated with death, misery, and despair.

didn't know the "red skin" origin.

While there were references to bounties on "red-skins" after the Dakota wars in the 1860s, the term was around long before that. It appeared in print as early as 1813.

I had the gift of marching with AIM members including Mr Bellecourt this past fall to the Viking stadium for the Washington vs MN game. I have no doubt it is painful. I stood with men and women who's parents were abused in those awful schools. Who's grandparents were killed by whites because they were Native. Abuse continues in many ways that I"m sure you are well aware of and that many other Americans aren't aware of.

Why the Washington team's very offensive and hateful name is offensive has been explained in great length in the last two years, especially around the time we marched in the fall.

Other than stubborn ignorance I don't get why people don't get it.

All the abuses of history can receive retribution. Evil was never the intent when naming the team. "Intent". got it?

Nothing is going to happen if we sit on our butts.

Progressive Filed, 2401 Ontario St, Cleveland, OH 44115.
Phone: (216) 420-4487
Email: http://cleveland.indians.mlb.com/help/email.jsp?c_id=cle&primarySubject=Other&secondarySubject=Other%20Indians%20I

The Logo on the teams uniforms for about 68 of the 72 games they've played this year is the traditional Block C that they used way, way back in the day.

Chief Wahoo is going to be phased out. Some people will bitch about it and claim that the PC crowds are running amock, but I think the team realizes that he needs to go, and I predict that he will.

Now, with that being said, I think it's disengunious to try to equate Chief Wahoo with a name that came from payments for the scalps of indians.

IMHO-Names like Braves, Seminoles, Blackhawks, Illini and Indians can and should be seen as honoring, remembering and respecting our national heritage.

Lose the idiotic stereotypical mascots, and I see know problem with those names.

We need to look at the origins and the intents when these teams were named.

If I were to find out that the Syracuse Orangemen were named to make fun of, or mock John Boehner, I'd have a problem with that too!

They were once known as the "Blues." That would be a cool replacement.

with the name, just Chief Wahoo. BTW, my first major league baseball game was in Muni stadium, mid 80's. The Indians were a cheap ticket then, and there was always plenty of empty seats.

can't think of any better time to start with a clean slate.

The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all. And that's to say nothing of the symbolism of the feds deeming the team's corporate identity unfit for its imprimatur.

I hadn't seen that.

Does this mean anyone can produce 'Redskins' gear without prosecution?

Last edited Wed Jun 18, 2014, 01:01 PM - Edit history (4)

Washington's NFL football team can call itself the {redacted} all it wants. No one can stop them. If the order holds up, team owner Dan Snyder will not be able to have the gummint seize and destroy counterfeit merchandise coming in from, oh, some foreign country that will not be named, which is something that he can do with trademark protection. Anyone, foreign or domestic, will be able to make {redacted} merchandise all he wants, and there's nothing Dan Snyder will be able to do about it.

ETA, linking to someone who knows more about this than I do (which is pretty much nothing):

Patent Office Just Tomahawk-Chopped The ‘Redskins’ Trademark

18 Jun 2014 at 10:46 AM
Football, Intellectual Property, Sports, Trademarks

By Elie Mystal

....
Moving onto the effect of this decision… well, you’ll never have to pay full price for “Redskins” paraphernalia again. The USPTO pointed out that it has authority only over the registration of the mark, not the use. The team can still pursue common law remedies against people infringing on their (now unregistered) mark. But… good luck winning those. And good luck getting a court — the Redskins plan to appeal — to agree that you deserve protection for a slur.

Can they do that? I agree with the action, but - hell, this could open up a floodgate of patent and trademark names being canceled - Redskin Peanuts, Redskin Chili, Black and Decker, Yellow pages, etc. Do they have the legal right to deny name brands, I believe this is an overstepping of their mandate to rule on patent originality and trademark infringements.

Redskin potatoes are called such because the skin of the potato is quite literally the color red. Black and Decker were the last names of the two people who founded the company. The Yellow Pages are literally yellow. The Cincinnati Reds are called that because they used to wear Red socks (they were originally called the Cincinnati Red Stockings, Boston already had the "Socks" thing, so they just dropped "Stockings" and called it a day).

Basically, the people at the US Patent Office are not as oblivious to meaning as you seem to imply.

I would never, NEVER -I repeat- cast dispersions on our fine government people and their interpretation of policy and law.

By Catherine Ho October 20, 2013

1.What is the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and who’s on it?

The board is the unit within the Patent and Trademark Office that hears cases when registered trademarks are challenged. The board’s 22 administrative law judges are career government employees with a background in trademark law, either as lawyers in private practice or as trademark-examining attorneys — the people who decide whether a trademark meets the requirements to be registered. The board rules in three-judge panels. This particular case will be decided by Peter Cataldo, Karen Kuhlke and Marc Bergsman.

nice disrupting there.

what a bunch of BS.

Calm down and don't get your bowels in an uproar - OK, maul these then - Aunt Jamima Pancakes, Uncle Ben Rice, The Fighting Irish and for kickers, the entire state of Oklahoma (which means RED PEOPLE in Choctow).

None of the things you mentioned refer to an ethnicity of people.

Are you really trying this method of argument?

then again, nothing will be done on offensive plays.

There are ospreys are over the place along the Potomac River. Also, they are bad hombres. Try to get close to one in a kayak, and it will let you know of its displeasure.





Years ago, someone described them as having a "Joan Jett haircut." Best. Description. Ever.

Osprey cam!

http://www.chesapeakeconservancy.org/Osprey-Cam

Love.

Saw a couple chasing a young eagle away from their nest. As big as ospreys are, they looked small next to that eagle.

and the racists will agree.

Should these be revoked too?

If not, why not?

Check the statutes.

If one can be repealed for being offensive, why can't all the other offensive ones be repealed too?

The Lanham Act, which governs trademarks, specifically provides that trademark protection is not available for marks that "consist[] of or comprise[] 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.

Whether or not there could constitutionally be a similar limitation on copyright protection, there is not such a limitation in the law today.

Each individual case must be filed on behalf of those offended. If you believe a movie title brings a group into disrepute, simply file a suit to revoke the listing so others may use the same title, and we'll wait with baited breath to see the outcome...

I was talking about movies whose content, not titles, were offensive.

But I would never file such a lawsuit. I am worried about people who would file such a lawsuit.

Pretty much every R-rated movie has content that is offensive. So why shouldn't their copyrights all be revoked?

A logo or mascot is there whether you want to see it or not.

So no,there is no slippery slope here. Apples and oranges.

"So why shouldn't their copyrights all be revoked? "

Bring the case individually, and it will judged on its own merits.

This would be one of the unilateral moves the President suggested he might take.

It is of course only the opening shot across the bow; the court battles can be dragged out for decades while Snyder's merchandise machine milks both ends of the transition, so it ain't like he's gonna lose at the end of all of this, no matter what.

I think the National Congress of American Indians should be appointed to decide what to name the Washington football team. My suggestion is, The Washington Wasi'chu.

The statute denying trademark protection to disparaging marks was enacted by Congress before Obama was President. The litigation challenging the Redskins trademark on that basis was begun before Obama was President. From the linked article:

I have to wonder if anyone will steal it. Someone creative could probably make some trouble for the team with the image.

and Snyder is all about making money. If this ruling impairs his ability to be as rich as he wants to be, this could induce him to change the name of the team.

HOWEVER ..... as long as Snyder owns this team, this team will suck. Snyder has a toxic effect on this club, through all the different coaches and players that have gone through it since he bought it.

hey, a new team name! The Washington Sucks! A sentiment many can agree with.

If Danny Boy isn't convinced by the argument that he would be wasting his time, then remind him that time is money. Then he might be impressed.

technically, this means that it's still ok for the team to use the name, it's just that they get no trademark protection, i.e., they can't stop anyone else from also using the name. meaning that if they continue to use the name themselves, other companies can sell redskins merchandise as well. though they still can't use the nfl logo, unless properly licensed through the nfl; that's still a valid trademark.

interesting that to stop one company from using an offensive name, they grant permission to everyone to use that offensive name, undermining the commercial value of that name, leading the original company to switch to a new name, which really undermines the value of the name, prompting other companies to not bother using the name. well, except a few small companies no doubt.

and this is one more step in that direction. This is going to happen, it is just a matter of time.

As a Redskins fan I have been conflicted about the name for years. not the image on the helmet as that was designed by an American Indian. I fully recognize that the name is offensive. Problem is Dan Snyder is the owner and he is a litigious son of a bitch. The other problem in the Official NFL Merchandise issue. Every single team gets the same cut of all the gear that is sold each year. Dallas led the league for years in jersey sales and Jerry Jones wanted to work his own deal and the NFL shut him down. Without that trademark protection the league cannot guarantee the authenticity or quality of the merchandise sold under the Redskins logo. never mind the potato chips and chili and all the other stuff that will pop up once the suit has followed its due course. This will be the first time that a team changes it name while still in the same city. It may take 10 years but the name will change.

The long-ago Boston NFL team changed its name from Braves to {redacted} when it moved across town from the baseball Braves' stadium to Fenway. It chose {redacted} for the Native American reference, as in Braves, and also because there was someone associated with the team who claimed to be Native American, though we now know that was bogus.

I think they were the Boston Redskins for 1 year before moving to Washington and it was related to the stadium in which they played. I will not redact the name in my posts but if the name changes I will call then by their new name.

Or maybe one already did.

My comment was related to NFL teams. The original Charlotte Hornets moved to New Orleans and kept the name for several years. They decided to change the name and the winner was the Pelicans which is the state bird of Louisiana. As a result Michael Jordan who is one of the owners of the Charlotte Bobcats asked for the name Hornets to be returned to the current Charlotte team. A prior poster made a comment about the name being changed to the Washington Senators but the Texas Rangers still own the rights to that name. The Washington Bullets changed their name to the Wizard back in 1997.

--it creates silliness like the Utah Jazz and the LA Lakers.

and I used to run around a "lake" in LA, Lake Hollywood, which is actually a reservoir created by a dam. There are a few other such reservoirs.

And the Jazz was orriginally a NOLA team.

don't like it, is okay?

I don't agree with that logic you got right there.

The image on the helmet is not the issue. The name Redskins is. Stick to the facts, They have had an R and spear just like Florida State has. They also had a simple gold helmet for many years. It is not a character like Chief Wahoo is. It is an Indian Chief wearing a ceremonial head dress. I am sorry if you don't like my logic but the name is the issue not the image on the helmet.

Unless you have the trademark rights to it?

but I don't much care if they change it or not. Heck, if they named some team after my group (like the Crackers) I wouldn't care either. Maybe there is something wrong with me.

or, maybe you just don't care. But it isn't really about you, and whether or not you care.

Therefore, there is no historical basis for, for instance, thinking of the term cracker as a word with weight either in symbolism or action. The term cracker was never socially weaponized precisely because the dominant racial class, white persons, would never need to do such a thing.

Therefore, your comparison is motivated by what I can only assume is a deep ignorance of the subject.

This is the kind of thing people distract themselves with while the world economy collapses and the US transforms itself into a police state. They are rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

This isn't a distraction to those who are subject to its consequence.

Best regards.

Ignoring racial issues because they don't feed an obsession with economic class conflict is neglect of the highest order. And it is doing exactly that which you accuse others of doing. Namely, distracting yourself with one issue of conflict and in the process ignoring another.

What specifically leads you to the premise this is merely a distraction?

From the last time they revoked the trademarks? Won't they just appeal and win on the same grounds?

the difference is an issue of laches primarily.

Laches is a complex legal doctrine that boils down to "You can't wait so long to file a lawsuit that it places the defendant at a disadvantage as a result of circumstance rather than fact of law or the facts of the case." The traditional example used to explain laches is waiting 5 years to file a sexual harassment suit against a former employer, by which time the employee that sexually-harassed you has died and any witnesses to the sexual harassment have been scattered to the winds. The time passed disproportionately affects the defendant's ability to defend the suit since they have to track down witnesses to testify as to what actually happened and the plaintiff only has to testify themselves.

The first case before the TTAB where the Redskins trademark was struck down, Harjo v. Pro Football Inc., a large part of that was a laches issue...the plaintiffs had waited almost 8 years past the first date (the 18th birthday of the youngest) they could have filed the suit to actually file the suit. There is no laches issue with the decision in Blackhorse v. Pro Football Inc., Amanda Blackhorse and her co-complainants filed within a year of their 18th birthdays, they could not have filed earlier as they did not have standing before the court as minors.

There were also procedural issues not connected to the facts of the case in Harjo (the facts in evidence did not justify the breadth of the decision; it was less a matter of failing to make the case than the TTAB interpreting the law in an overly-broad manner), if not for the laches issue, the case would have almost certainly been remanded back to the TTAB where the exact same three judge panel would have reheard the case and almost certainly reached the exact same conclusion on narrower grounds.

This may or not get overturned as-well...but if it is, it's basically going to be refiled over-and-over on various grounds that conform to the previous rulings until the trademark is stricken in a decision the Federal Court can uphold. The respondent (The Washington football team) can't ever permanently win unless the TTAB finds in its favor...which will likely never happen...but they can-and-most-likely-will permanently-lose at some point down the road when a decision is entered that the Federal court will uphold.

when Neon Deion Sanders roamed the Braves' outfield. The chop followed him up I-75 from Florida State and the Seminoles.

The Braves' logo is just a tomahawk.

Hard to keep track of all the institutionalized racism in American sports symbols.

I will not even link to it.

Are absolutely flabbergasted. It is hilarious!

go over to Freaker-Republic and see them opinionatin' and giving each otehr lessons in Patent Law.

And the men's room is way down the hall.

Same thing happened in 1999 and was reversed on appeal in 2003:

Research this case:

Harjo v. Pro Football Inc.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/US/2014/06/18/Trademark-board-cancels-six-Redskins-trademarks/6251403104849/

Ha! This is pretty awesome. It will be interesting to see what Snyder does next and also how this will impact all the Seminoles, Braves, Indians out there

Welcome to DU.

The Seminole Tribe of Florida and the Seminole Nation of Oklahoma have both given FSU permission to use their name.

his objection rather than graciously abandon it. Just saying that it looks like the fix is in. We laugh, but Synder laughs last?

I don't expect my government to have a voice in everything. After all this time, surely the motivation is personal pique. Why get involved? We always heard 'words will not harm you'. Buck up and let the marketplace vote with their pocketbook. Why is the patent office sprouting wings and flying off the handle? Why the hindsight?

This is alluded to in the OP and explained in more detail in the linked article.

Snyder may call his team anything he wants (as long as it doesn't infringe someone else's trademark, of course). The federal government has a "voice" in this (in your term) because the team asked it to. Before Snyder was even the owner, one of his predecessors registered the trademark with the federal government. The team wasn't required to register, but chose to do so because that way it could take advantage of federal law. If someone other than the team tries to sell "Redskins" merchandise, the team can go to federal court and get an injunction, and I think that federal marshals (hired and trained at taxpayer expense) will swoop in and seize any infringing merchandise.

So it's a little late for Snyder to argue that the federal government should not get involved.

His problem is that he must take the bitter with the sweet. The statute gives him the right to register a trademark and get all those commercially valuable powers against infringers. The statute also, however, makes that right contingent on the trademark being one that meets the conditions specified in the statute. One of those conditions is that the mark be one that's not disparaging.

In this instance, some people say it's disparaging and some say it isn't. That's not the sort of question that can be answered by "let the marketplace vote with their pocketbook." Instead, we commit the question to judges. The judges hear the evidence and arguments from both sides and render a decision. That's what happened here. It's not a case of someone "flying off the handle" but rather the normal functioning of a legal system.

just ranting. I am an everyday citizen opposed to the intrusiveness of our government, political correctness and spinning for personal prestige. Thanks for a sensical response.

Dan Snyder, you are an asshole....I don't wish you any luck at all.

maybe they can use up all time outs trying to prevent their opponents from taking the field

Dan Snyder is not afraid of taking everyone and their mothers to court.

legal protection for everything that's offensive to someone.
Flipper creeped me out as a kid. I want to see the Miami Dolphins renamed to something else. Who do I go see? I probably won't get any kind of popular support for the idea, but who cares? As long as I can convince some bureaucrat, I should be good, right?

This is a stupid ruling.