Patent office cancels Redskins trademark

[Aikouka]

Do you really want to see a company like cracker barrel lose their rights because 1 white person finds it racist? What about 1%? 10%? 30%? 49%? 51%?

I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if allegations arose of Cracker Barrel being disparaging to Caucasians. Personally, I couldn't care less about the name, but I'd like to see the results for sociological and psychological purposes.

 

[purbeast0]

No, not directly. Just associating it with a picture of an American Indian.

how do you know that is an american indian? what if it was a mayan or an inca?

 

[CountZero]

You brushed past the part about allowing genes to be patented, an overreach partially overturned by the US Supreme Court... only synthesized genes are allowed to be patented. We're talking about products of nature vs. wo/man-made things including words, which can have various meanings including the term "beloved patriot." Naturally occurring things/substances cannot be patented. That's all.

You also do realize this overreach by the US Patent Office won't actually stop Washington from calling their team the "Redskins"? It only limits the term's exclusivity as it retates to the NFL team. In other words, currently *anyone* could make money from the Redskins name and logo.

We're talking about trademarks not patents. I know you brought up patents but it has no bearing on the discussion about trademarks.

Again to claim the trademark office making decisions about suits regarding trademark registration as an overreach is nonsensical. It is their job. Likewise for the appeal no matter which way it goes it isn't an overreach.

Obviously if the trademark is invalidated anyone could use it including the team that already does use it. It also means no one else can register the trademark, at least in regards to sports teams.

I don't care if they use Redskins or not, I just don't care. I find it intellectual interesting to see how things go but have no vested interest in the outcome.

 

[bradley]

We're talking about trademarks not patents. I know you brought up patents but it has no bearing on the discussion about trademarks.

Again to claim the trademark office making decisions about suits regarding trademark registration as an overreach is nonsensical. It is their job. Likewise for the appeal no matter which way it goes it isn't an overreach.

Obviously if the trademark is invalidated anyone could use it including the team that already does use it. It also means no one else can register the trademark, at least in regards to sports teams.

I don't care if they use Redskins or not, I just don't care. I find it intellectual interesting to see how things go but have no vested interest in the outcome.

In my haste, I used the terms trademark and patent interchangeably, obviously there's a huge distinction. My points still remain.

Did you or others know the reason behind the actual 'offense' before being presented with the history of the word? I rarely see actually facts (only ignorance) presented by social engineers for their own self-preservation.

Poll most social engineers and 100% of them will be offended with 100% of everything. It's like the blind leading the blind. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

 

[JulesMaximus]

We're talking about trademarks not patents. I know you brought up patents but it has no bearing on the discussion about trademarks.

Again to claim the trademark office making decisions about suits regarding trademark registration as an overreach is nonsensical. It is their job. Likewise for the appeal no matter which way it goes it isn't an overreach.

Obviously if the trademark is invalidated anyone could use it including the team that already does use it. It also means no one else can register the trademark, at least in regards to sports teams.

I don't care if they use Redskins or not, I just don't care. I find it intellectual interesting to see how things go but have no vested interest in the outcome.

I agree and this is pretty much the reason I am posting in this thread.

 

[Pulsar]

We're talking about trademarks not patents. I know you brought up patents but it has no bearing on the discussion about trademarks.

Again to claim the trademark office making decisions about suits regarding trademark registration as an overreach is nonsensical. It is their job. Likewise for the appeal no matter which way it goes it isn't an overreach.

Obviously if the trademark is invalidated anyone could use it including the team that already does use it. It also means no one else can register the trademark, at least in regards to sports teams.

I don't care if they use Redskins or not, I just don't care. I find it intellectual interesting to see how things go but have no vested interest in the outcome.

I disagree. After all, there's a whole lot of things I find offensive. I'm betting that going by the Amish or the Quaker benchmark, there a LOT of trademarks that are offensive - let's say trademarks for sex toys, etc etc.

This is a definite over-reach. We don't have the right not to be offended, and it's not the patent office's job to insure we aren't offended. In fact, it's not the government's job to make sure we're not offended.

It opens a HUGE can of worms, and is yet another expansion of power of government. Now the patent office is also a measure of offensiveness? Since when.

 

[Phoenix86]

how do you know that is an american indian? what if it was a mayan or an inca?

Because of the red skin.

:sneaky:

 

[poofyhairguy]

Now the patent office is also a measure of offensiveness? Since when.

Since pretty much forever. You just never cared about that power until now.

Here is an example from earlier this year when “Stop Islamisation of America” was rejected for a trademark on the same grounds:

http://www.law360.com/articles/537690/fed-circ-rejects-stop-islamisation-mark-as-offensive

 

[Atomic Playboy]

how do you know that is an american indian? what if it was a mayan or an inca?

The Maya or Inca aren't historically depicted with feathers; that's a tribal custom of American plains Indians like the Sioux, Blackfoot and Comanche (among others). Although I don't see how the association with an indigenous group more geographically distant would somehow make it better. Maybe Dan Snyder should change the name to the Pygmies. That's far enough away that no one would complain, right?

 

[Thebobo]

Or perhaps more ironic is assuming that everyone here is "white" or that only "white" people could defend free speech. I'll bet 9 out of 10 don't even know why the term "beloved patriot" is actually offensive in a purely historical context... only a rash PC one.

I would say 9.99999 out of 10 had no idea.

 

[CountZero]

I disagree. After all, there's a whole lot of things I find offensive. I'm betting that going by the Amish or the Quaker benchmark, there a LOT of trademarks that are offensive - let's say trademarks for sex toys, etc etc.

This is a definite over-reach. We don't have the right not to be offended, and it's not the patent office's job to insure we aren't offended. In fact, it's not the government's job to make sure we're not offended.

It opens a HUGE can of worms, and is yet another expansion of power of government. Now the patent office is also a measure of offensiveness? Since when.

It is probably worth noting that while the CNN article used the word offensive in reality the ruling is whether the trademark is disparaging. The difference being that while the Amish may be offended by sex toys unless there is one that disparages them (like calling it Amish Maid or whatever) they have no grounds to file a suit. As to the 'since when' my research indicates since at least the Trademark Act of 1946. So it might be an expansion of government but one that happened nearly 70 years ago.

It's even more interesting because it has to have been disparaging at the time of registration and this is where the Redskins have won on appeal at least once before since it was registered in something like 1932. I'd also imagine that you could ask whether or not a law about registration that went into effect in 1946 can even be used on a registration from 1932, I don't know.

 

[shortylickens]

I will now go make racist indian gear at MyLocker.com and wear it around any damn time I feel like it.

 

[Thebobo]

interesting story behind that picture...

After months of courting support in Indian country, Snyder finally chalked up a big success: Seven octogenarian Navajo Code Talkers have endorsed the Redskins name and mascot. But judging from the reaction in Indian country, it could be his greatest misstep yet in this sordid campaign.

The endorsement was approved at a meeting of the Navajo Code Talkers Association (NCTA) in Window Rock, Arizona on February 28 – and was met with outrage from the descendants of code talkers actively involved in the association and devoted to honoring the legacy of their fathers and grandfathers...

Suzan Harjo wrote of the event: “The Redskins’ ‘honoring’ of Navajo code talkers consisted of four frail veterans standing in the end zone and receiving a round of applause. Three of the four Navajo elders wore Redskins jackets, with the new-clothes price tags still hanging at their wrists. These seniors probably thought this was another in a long line of recent recognitions of their WWII achievements some 70 years ago, rather than any implied endorsement of the team’s name.”

On hearing about the Code Talkers endorsement of the Redskins, Harjo honed in on MacDonald’s involvement. “He has a long history of exploiting his people,” she said, “and I think this is an example of that.”

http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwo...-navajo-code-talkers-assoc-endorsement-153932

The article reeks of a power struggle in the nations to me. Just because they are old does not mean the are senile. Give the men some credit,maybe these Veterans are wise enough to know its not the huge insults that the young folks are making of it. And yea it sucks they were honored and a whole new world of folks who never even heard of them leaned about their accomplishments.

 

[shortylickens]

Do you really want to see a company like cracker barrel lose their rights because 1 white person finds it racist? What about 1%? 10%? 30%? 49%? 51%?

That wont happen. Whites arent nearly as uppity. Unless they're liberals.

But liberals hate white people so they still wont get uppity about white slurs.

 

[Thebobo]

That wont happen. Whites arent nearly as uppity. Unless they're liberals.

But liberals hate white people so they still wont get uppity about white slurs.

What does any of this have to do with Liberals? You think only Liberals can be PC?

 

[JulesMaximus]

That wont happen. Whites arent nearly as uppity. Unless they're liberals.

But liberals hate white people so they still wont get uppity about white slurs.

So you just came in here to post idiotic nonsense completely unrelated to the topic of the thread?

Troll away my brother...

 

[IronWing]

Whites arent nearly as uppity.

Um.

 

[MongGrel]

I think it would be very interesting to see what would happen if allegations arose of Cracker Barrel being disparaging to Caucasians. Personally, I couldn't care less about the name, but I'd like to see the results for sociological and psychological purposes.

:thumbsup::thumbsup:

:biggrin:

I'm actually a very small part Lanape, Native American, all this stuff is just kinda of amusing to me.

 

[bradley]

I disagree. After all, there's a whole lot of things I find offensive. I'm betting that going by the Amish or the Quaker benchmark, there a LOT of trademarks that are offensive - let's say trademarks for sex toys, etc etc.

This is a definite over-reach. We don't have the right not to be offended, and it's not the patent office's job to insure we aren't offended. In fact, it's not the government's job to make sure we're not offended.

It opens a HUGE can of worms, and is yet another expansion of power of government. Now the patent office is also a measure of offensiveness? Since when.

Exactly. One of the few here who see an overall picture, one of a miscarriage of justice. This is actually another example of theft of property rights without due process.

The patent office issues the first 'beloved patriot' trademark decades ago. Said client invests considerable time, energy and money building a brand... of which (I might add) was a darned successful proposition.

Now here the USPTO comes along - decades after the fact - trying to redistribute that monetary value created with total autonomy, completely circumventing the courts.

Again::: this USPTO decision makes the Washington beloved patriot logo its *most* ever-present in our culture, not less. Right now, anyone can create and start selling Washington Redskins memorabilia/clothing/artifacts etc. at a profit until that worth is completely diluted or diminished.

Nothing of worth was actually accomplished by yet another overreaching USPTO decision, except to make an ignorant few feel better about themselves.

 

[MongGrel]

That wont happen. Whites arent nearly as uppity. Unless they're liberals.

But liberals hate white people so they still wont get uppity about white slurs.

I must have lost something in translation there.

Huh?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

I must have lost something in translation there.

Huh?

Shorty likes trolling "liberals."

 

[Phoenix86]

Exactly. One of the few here who see an overall picture, one of a miscarriage of justice. This is actually another example of theft of property rights without due process.

The patent office issues the first 'beloved patriot' trademark decades ago. Said client invests considerable time, energy and money building a brand... of which (I might add) was a darned successful proposition.

Now here the USPTO comes along - decades after the fact - trying to redistribute that monetary value created with total autonomy, completely circumventing the courts.

Again::: this USPTO decision makes the Washington beloved patriot logo its *most* ever-present in our culture, not less. Right now, anyone can create and start selling Washington Redskins memorabilia/clothing/artifacts etc. at a profit until that worth is completely diluted or diminished.

Nothing of worth was actually accomplished by yet another overreaching USPTO decision, except to make an ignorant few feel better about themselves.

I'm with you on to a degree on the whole "trademark's shouldn't be evaluated on their offensiveness." I'm even with you on the due process comment.

Then you lose me. Are you saying if they team is forced to change names they will lose brand value? I doubt that impact a bit. First, their value is being an NFL team and being successful as that team. Teams have rebranded in the past w/o losing all their value.

Next you start to go off the deep end. USPTO is redistributing wealth? Bullshit. When you rebrand the team what's the first thing die hard fans will do? Go buy the old jersey from a shill company or buy the new brand and support the new team? Further this isn't the point of the change. They didn't say "Hey, look at that team in DC, they are making a bunch of money. Any idea how we can get at that?"

 

[Thebobo]

Shorty likes trolling "liberals."

I bit

 

[bradley]

I'm with you on to a degree on the whole "trademark's shouldn't be evaluated on their offensiveness." I'm even with you on the due process comment.

Then you lose me. Are you saying if they team is forced to change names they will lose brand value? I doubt that impact a bit. First, their value is being an NFL team and being successful as that team. Teams have rebranded in the past w/o losing all their value.

Next you start to go off the deep end. USPTO is redistributing wealth? Bullshit. When you rebrand the team what's the first thing die hard fans will do? Go buy the old jersey from a shill company or buy the new brand and support the new team? Further this isn't the point of the change. They didn't say "Hey, look at that team in DC, they are making a bunch of money. Any idea how we can get at that?"

The deep end is merely a knee-jerk reaction to the word "redistribution," as to where you even include the "wealth" part to make it more iconically significant.

Except.... banning that term "redistribution" only harms those monetarily represented by a trademark, otherwise it's just a term/word. However our diminishing free speech rights harms everyone in incalculable ways.

Although you tell me what's happening then, if this isn't redistributing a portion of the beloved patriot team's worth? Perhaps because it isn't happening directly to you?

Additionally whether or not the Redskins are harmed by changing their name/logo is irrelevant, although it certainly shouldn't be up to the USPTO to decide. Anyone who understands or has faith in our court system and due process knows the decision won't stand; it's just another distraction for people who've been taught to relish in these things... tantamount to the semi-intellectual equivalent of the Karda$$ians.

Again, 99%(a fair marjority?) of the people offended by the term 'Redskins' don't even know the actual reason why. But let's circumvent all logic/laws/reason to uphold every and all reactions to most ignorant amongst us, or lowest common denominator of society. lol?

 

[feralkid]

how do you know that is an american indian? what if it was a mayan or an inca?

Maya, Inca, Apache or Lakota...they are all Native American people, you dope.