U.S. Patent Office Cancels Redskins' Trademark Registrations

48dodge said:
I'm also offended by the government's use of Indian names to describe a lot of their military equipment.
Click to expand...

And Piper should REALLY be ashamed.

Seneca
Arrow
Seminole
Chieftain
Cherokee
Aztec
Navajo
Warrior
Lance
Apache
Tomahawk
Saratoga
Pawnee

Certainly more I'm forgetting.

Time for a boycott?
 
DJTorrente said:
New Logo announced...
attachment.php
Click to expand...

Vegetarians will get in a snit. :D
 
With all the real challenges facing the DC ship of imbeciles, I'm not surprised harry reid would choose a football team name to make a crusade out of.

His IQ has GOT to be in the mid single digits.
 
SCCutler said:
I helped you out there.

There are those who believe it to be the height of disrespect when one person presumes to know what another person is thinking, and imputes foul intent as a result.
Click to expand...
nddons said:
Yet no one was outraged until a couple of years ago. Why do you think that is?

This is selective outrage at its best, fomented by professional rabble rousers.
Click to expand...
In my opinion, both of you are misguided or ignorant or both. I'm not impressed with your character (or lack of it) but who really gives a s***?
 
so will they stop enforcing the copyright on Tom Sawyer? That work has plenty of objectionable content.
 
Well the copyright expired on Tom Sawyer in 1932, so I don't think we've got too much to worry about. The USPTO doesn't enforce trademarks, they just register them. Trademarks are enforced through the courts. Registration is not required to commence an infringement action. It allows you to do so in federal court, and possibly get more damages.
 
flyingron said:
Actually, they were outraged. I remember hearing the grumbling back when I was a kid. What's happening now is they've got better representation, most likely because some of of the "sovereign nation" status is giving them some profits from tobacco, casino, and financial businesses that use the status to dodge some onerous federal and local regulation.



Your comments sound like the typical excuse of the bigot. Heard the exact smae words used for why blacks shouldn't have equal rights, etc... It's always outside rabble rousers and not the good ol' peaceful and content, yet downtrodden victims of the abuse.
Click to expand...


If this hasn't been put into the SZ yet (mods, please do so) I can't say what I want to say to you by implying I'm a bigot. :mad:

Are you a whole 20 years old? Because this controversy began around 1992, but gained little traction. Then it erupted with a symposium in 2013 at the Smithsonian. Where were these offended people during the first 60 years of the use of this name? The logo was inspired by a Native American and former president of the National Congress of American Indians in 1972, according to Wiki. Bless your heart, you probably weren't even born then.

There was a 2004 poll that reflected that 90% of those that identified as American Indians were not bothered by the Washington Redskins name. We are getting our panties in a wad for the 10%? I bet you can't get 90% of people to agree that the sky is blue.
 
nddons said:
If this hasn't been put into the SZ yet (mods, please do so) I can't say what I want to say to you by implying I'm a bigot. :mad:

Are you a whole 20 years old? Because this controversy began around 1992, but gained little traction. Then it erupted with a symposium in 2013 at the Smithsonian. Where were these offended people during the first 60 years of the use of this name? The logo was inspired by a Native American and former president of the National Congress of American Indians in 1972, according to Wiki. Bless your heart, you probably weren't even born then.

There was a 2004 poll that reflected that 90% of those that identified as American Indians were not bothered by the Washington Redskins name. We are getting our panties in a wad for the 10%? I bet you can't get 90% of people to agree that the sky is blue.
Click to expand...
I'm not convinced that 90% is an accurate number. As I mentioned earlier I have a Native American friend. She is not engaged in any of these campaigns to remove Native references from sports teams. She is a strong person and does not go around complaining. I had to get to know her fairly well before I realized how certain things offended her. She will not hold a $20 bill. Does anybody have a clue why? Maybe it's time some of you cracked open a few history books and reflected on the way Native Americans have been treated and then tell me it's no big deal.
 
As promised, here are the results of the three. I felt the questions were a little limiting as how I felt wasn't always offered as a choice so I just took the best choice.


SixPapaCharlie said:
I took these 3:

http://www.gotoquiz.com/conservative_or_liberal
Click to expand...

Score: 5% (Hardcore Liberal)

SixPapaCharlie said:
https://www.blogthings.com/howliberalorconservativeareyouquiz/
Click to expand...

Social Issues: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Personal Responsibility: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Fiscal Issues: 50% Conservative, 50% Liberal

Ethics: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

Defense and Crime: 0% Conservative, 100% Liberal

SixPapaCharlie said:
http://www.proprofs.com/quiz-school/story.php?title=are-you-liberal-conservative&id=6498
Click to expand...

Liberal
You believe in governmental action to achieve equal opportunity and equality for all, and that it is the duty of the State to alleviate social ills and to protect civil liberties and individual and human rights. Believe the role of the government should be to guarantee that no one is in need. Believe that people are basically good.
 
I'm very concerned that my football team is insulting my Equine-American friends.
 
Gary F said:
I'm not convinced that 90% is an accurate number. As I mentioned earlier I have a Native American friend. She is not engaged in any of these campaigns to remove Native references from sports teams. She is a strong person and does not go around complaining. I had to get to know her fairly well before I realized how certain things offended her. She will not hold a $20 bill. Does anybody have a clue why? Maybe it's time some of you cracked open a few history books and reflected on the way Native Americans have been treated and then tell me it's no big deal.
Click to expand...
Yeah, man. Living tax free with all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of an American Citizen is hard work...
 
Gary F said:
I'm not convinced that 90% is an accurate number. As I mentioned earlier I have a Native American friend. She is not engaged in any of these campaigns to remove Native references from sports teams. She is a strong person and does not go around complaining. I had to get to know her fairly well before I realized how certain things offended her. She will not hold a $20 bill. Does anybody have a clue why? Maybe it's time some of you cracked open a few history books and reflected on the way Native Americans have been treated and then tell me it's no big deal.
Click to expand...

Maybe it's time you didn't presume we are stupid or il-informed. My admiration for the Native American began in my Boy Scout years. I studied the Lenni-Lenape tribe, the Delaware Nation, the Algonquins, and the natives of Illinois, my home state. In college I took an American Indian Literature class, largely because I went to school in Rock Island, Illinois, which was the home of Chief Black Hawk, the brave leader of the Sauk nation. We read his autobiography, which is a fascinating and ultimately sad read.

This story is told in the words of a tragic figure in American history - a hook-nosed, hollow-cheeked old Sauk warrior who lived under four flags while the Mississippi Valley was being wrested from his people.

The author is Black Hawk himself - once pursued by an army whose members included Captain Abraham Lincoln and Lieutenant Jefferson Davis. Perhaps no Indian ever saw so much of American expansion or fought harder to prevent that expansion from driving his people to exile and death.

He knew Zebulon Pike, William Clark, Henry Schoolcraft, George Catlin, Winfield Scott, and such figures in American government as President Andrew Jackson and Secretary of State Lewis Cass. He knew Chicago when it was a cluster of log houses around a fort, and he was in St. Louis the day the American flag went up and the French flag came down.

He saw crowds gather to cheer him in Philadelphia, Baltimore, and New York - and to stone the driver of his carriage in Albany - during a fantastic tour sponsored by the government.

And at last he dies in 1838, bitter in the knowledge that he had led men, women, and children of his tribe to slaughter on the banks of the Mississippi.
After his capture at the end of the Black Hawk War, he was imprisoned for a time and then released to live in the territory that is now Iowa. He dictated his autobiography to a government interpreter, Antoine LeClaire, and the story was put into written form by J. B. Patterson, a young Illinois newspaperman. Since its first appearance in 1833, the autobiography has become known as an American classic.
Click to expand...
http://www.amazon.com/Black-Hawk-Autobiography-Prairie-State/dp/0252723252
I respect these people. I respect and am in awe of their history, sad as much of it was. Their history is an integral component of the American Story. Sadly, it seems like people like you would rather wipe that history from the books, keep people cloistered from the culture and history, and allow the Native Americans to fall into the obscurity of reservation life and casinos.
 
SkyHog said:
Yeah, man. Living tax free with all the benefits and none of the responsibilities of an American Citizen is hard work...
Click to expand...
All Native Americans are on the dole? My friend has a management position at our hospital. If they are stuck on reservations in poverty you can trace that back to getting screwed by the US Government for centuries. Native Americans have been lied to, cheated and killed as a part of national policy.

If you want to support the insensitive redneck yahoos who think the name Redskins is fine, go ahead.
 
Gary F said:
All Native Americans are on the dole? My friend has a management position at our hospital. If they are stuck on reservations in poverty you can trace that back to getting screwed by the US Government for centuries. Native Americans have been lied to, cheated and killed as a part of national policy.

If you want to support the insensitive redneck yahoos who think the name Redskins is fine, go ahead.
Click to expand...

You're claiming that currently living Native Americans have been held back by our government (that is, more so than the rest of the citizens)?

Are you high? I would kill to get some of the things they get for no other reason than their skin color.
 
SkyHog said:
You're claiming that currently living Native Americans have been held back by our government (that is, more so than the rest of the citizens)?

Are you high? I would kill to get some of the things they get for no other reason than their skin color.
Click to expand...
Many of them have been deprived of reasonable opportunity as the result of government action. If your great great-grandparents were sent to a stinking reservation 150 years ago you might not be where you are today.
 
Gary F said:
Many of them have been deprived of reasonable opportunity as the result of government action. If your great great-grandparents were sent to a stinking reservation 150 years ago you might not be where you are today.
Click to expand...

My great great grandparents almost died in the Potato Famine and lived very poor lives in an American Ghetto when they lived.

At some point, you move on and make due with what you have.
 
I must be getting old, since I was playing in the DC intellectual property sandbox back when this went to the court merely the second time.

One thing I haven't heard from any of the usual perpetual greivance groups is to simply buy Snyder off the name. Forbes says the Redskins brand is worth $145 MM (personally I think that is low, as he couldn't duplicate that sort of name recognition with any other brand for less than 5x that price). Whatever the munber is, too many merely assume that a "rich" guy like Snyder should take it in the shorts to the tune of 9-figures so others can be free from mental distress at reading the sports page. Surely if its soooo important that the name has to go, then it should be important enough to write a check to make that happen.

On the off chance that this thing survies appeal this time, as it failed to twice before over 2-1/2 decades, I think Snyder had a damn solid claim for compensation as an administrative taking.

Besides, I chuckle that all those people gleefully rejoicing over Snyder's supposed 'comeuppance' for being a bigot don't realize that he's already got the replacement name picked out and proctected. If they were expecting to wake to a world of sweetness and light, where they can open the sports page to read all about the NFL Washington Pansies, they proabbly won't much like the new name either.
 
DJTorrente said:
I must be getting old, since I was playing in the DC intellectual property sandbox back when this went to the court merely the second time.

One thing I haven't heard from any of the usual perpetual greivance groups is to simply buy Snyder off the name. Forbes says the Redskins brand is worth $145 MM (personally I think that is low, as he couldn't duplicate that sort of name recognition with any other brand for less than 5x that price). Whatever the munber is, too many merely assume that a "rich" guy like Snyder should take it in the shorts to the tune of 9-figures so others can be free from mental distress at reading the sports page. Surely if its soooo important that the name has to go, then it should be important enough to write a check to make that happen.

On the off chance that this thing survies appeal this time, as it failed to twice before over 2-1/2 decades, I think Snyder had a damn solid claim for compensation as an administrative taking.

Besides, I chuckle that all those people gleefully rejoicing over Snyder's supposed 'comeuppance' for being a bigot don't realize that he's already got the replacement name picked out and proctected. If they were expecting to wake to a world of sweetness and light, where they can open the sports page to read all about the NFL Washington Pansies, they proabbly won't much like the new name either.
Click to expand...


Now THAT would be entertaining to see! Harry Reid on the floor of the senate complaining that the new name isn't feminine enough.
 
SkyHog said:
My great great grandparents almost died in the Potato Famine and lived very poor lives in an American Ghetto when they lived.

At some point, you move on and make due with what you have.
Click to expand...

That's not quite the same thing, Nick.

I have mixed feelings on the trademark issue because I think the Redskins (the team, that is) are legally right. I've registered a few trademarks myself, and there is a limited period during which objections can be filed. That opposition period ended decades ago. That was the time during which objections should have been filed, in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I felt the same way when the Order Sons of Italy in America, of which I was a member, filed petitions with the USPTO seeking to cancel the "Memphis Mafia" trademark and other trademarks containing the terms "mafia," "cosa nostra," etc. The trademarks were disparaging, but the time to file objections had passed. Once the trademarks were granted, they became intellectual property; and I believe that the bar required for the taking of property, once established as such, should be a very high one that is based on more than hurt feelings.

That being said, I wish the team would voluntarily re-name itself. My sympathies are with the Native Americans on this one, even if my opinion about the law isn't. What we as a nation did to them is an even worse shame on this country than slavery was. The sufferings of your great-grandparents, and my grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland and Italy respectively, don't even come close.

-Rich
 
Last edited:
RJM62 said:
That's not quite the same thing, Nick.

I have mixed feelings on the trademark issue because I think the Redskins (the team, that is) are legally right. I've registered a few trademarks myself, and there is a limited period during which objections can be filed. That opposition period ended decades ago. That was the time during which objections should have been filed, in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I felt the same way when the Order Sons of Italy in America, of which I was a member, filed petitions with the USPTO seeking to cancel the "Memphis Mafia" trademark and other trademarks containing the terms "mafia," "cosa nostra," etc. The trademarks were disparaging, but the time to file objections had passed. Once the trademarks were granted, they became intellectual property; and I believe that the bar required for the taking of property, once established as such, should be a very high one that is based on more than hurt feelings.

That being said, I wish the team would voluntarily re-name itself. My sympathies are with the Native Americans on this one, even if my opinion about the law isn't. What we as a nation did to them is an even worse shame on this country than slavery was. The sufferings of your great-grandparents, and my grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland and Italy respectively, don't even come close.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Rich, whether we agree or disagree on the name issue itself, your recitation of how the system is meant to work vs. how it did work in this instance should be what scares us.

It seems more and more we are seeing various areas of the government just deciding to do things differently because they want to in spite of what the law says. That is troubling.
 
RJM62 said:
That's not quite the same thing, Nick.

I have mixed feelings on the trademark issue because I think the Redskins (the team, that is) are legally right. I've registered a few trademarks myself, and there is a limited period during which objections can be filed. That opposition period ended decades ago. That was the time during which objections should have been filed, in my opinion.

For what it's worth, I felt the same way when the Order Sons of Italy in America, of which I was a member, filed petitions with the USPTO seeking to cancel the "Memphis Mafia" trademark and other trademarks containing the terms "mafia," "cosa nostra," etc. The trademarks were disparaging, but the time to file objections had passed. Once the trademarks were granted, they became intellectual property; and I believe that the bar required for the taking of property, once established as such, should be a very high one that is based on more than hurt feelings.

That being said, I wish the team would voluntarily re-name itself. My sympathies are with the Native Americans on this one, even if my opinion about the law isn't. What we as a nation did to them is an even worse shame on this country than slavery was. The sufferings of your great-grandparents, and my grandparents, who emigrated from Ireland and Italy respectively, don't even come close.

-Rich
Click to expand...

Yep giving them such useless land, like this:
SandiaMtnNM.jpg


or this:
DSC_0052.jpg


Then, allowing them to live tax free and still vote in the popular elections, is an absolute travesty. I mean, I can't imagine a nation losing a war would be treated to such horrible conditions - they should have been given these types of conditions instead:
71349-004-5D04A44D.jpg


So that it would have been humane.

Look - all sarcasm aside, what you refer to as a travesty of justice is what happens in EVERY war where one side loses. The other side takes what they need and gives what they don't. In this case, however, they were much more generous than most people think to the Native Americans. They lost lives and so did we, but that's the cost of war (they did choose to fight us, if you remember correctly). At the end, their biggest loss was their homeland. Not an uncommon result from war.
 
Unfortunately, I think with the government involvement now it's just going to turn more people more stubborn against a name change.

If the league decided, or the owners decided, that the current name was costing them $, they'd find a way to ease out of it and folks would probably understand that business is business. Now, it's turned into another case of "the feds are sticking their noses where they don't belong...again" and polarizing the sides even more.
 
SkyHog said:
You're claiming that currently living Native Americans have been held back by our government (that is, more so than the rest of the citizens)?

Are you high? I would kill to get some of the things they get for no other reason than their skin color.
Click to expand...

No, current living native Americans are busy running casinos. Do try to remember there are different tribes and different deals. Until very recently though, Native American access to capital was virtually non existent, and their traditional way of life is no longer possible because we took over what was theirs and stuck them in places that are nearly un survivable and slaughtered their food source nearly driving the NA Bison extinct.

We created a Somalia culture within the US.
 
SkyHog said:
Yep giving them such useless land, like this:
SandiaMtnNM.jpg


or this:
DSC_0052.jpg


Then, allowing them to live tax free and still vote in the popular elections, is an absolute travesty. I mean, I can't imagine a nation losing a war would be treated to such horrible conditions - they should have been given these types of conditions instead:
71349-004-5D04A44D.jpg


So that it would have been humane.

Look - all sarcasm aside, what you refer to as a travesty of justice is what happens in EVERY war where one side loses. The other side takes what they need and gives what they don't. In this case, however, they were much more generous than most people think to the Native Americans. They lost lives and so did we, but that's the cost of war (they did choose to fight us, if you remember correctly). At the end, their biggest loss was their homeland. Not an uncommon result from war.
Click to expand...
Those photos are not representative and even if they were they are not necessarily suitable to support farming or industry. Yea, they lost. We invaded and killed them for their land. Too bad for them.
 
Gary F said:
Those photos are not representative and even if they were they are not necessarily suitable to support farming or industry. Yea, they lost. We invaded and killed them for their land. Too bad for them.
Click to expand...

For what it is worth, we also killed the British and took their land too when we formed the United States. Should we look back at that and give all kinds of benefits to the UK as well, since they clearly lost out on some great land here in America?

How about in the wars with Mexico, where they lost chunks of their land to the United States. Lots of blood spilled over that land as well, so perhaps we should give it back and donate money to their government.

Its how war works.
 
nddons said:
Yet no one was outraged until a couple of years ago. Why do you think that is?

This is selective outrage at its best, fomented by professional rabble rousers.
Click to expand...

:confused: I remember this name being controversial when I was in grade school in the early 70s, of course then you could say it was being used as a distraction from Nixon and Watergate.
 
nddons said:
If this hasn't been put into the SZ yet (mods, please do so) I can't say what I want to say to you by implying I'm a bigot. :mad:

Are you a whole 20 years old?
Click to expand...
You want it in Spin Zone because you can't have a debate without devolving it into name calling?

Yes I know about that poll. Wow a whole whopping 600 self-identified native american people on some other survey said they don't care.

However, I can tell you the undercurrents of the dissatisfaction with offensive names and caricatures has been going on for more than 20 years. Yes, some of it I find trivial, but I'm not one of the affected. People "knew" that portraying people in blackface and various offense african stereotypes didn't bother blacks either.
 
Of course the valuation is smoke blowing. Yes, the logo of the Washington sports team is worth a lot of money. It's still worth a lot of money even if they change it. Teams that move between cities or change their names for other reasons (we've already mentioned the Bulllets-to-Wizards change) don't see any loss in revenue for the change. In fact they see an increase in revenue. The new name is almost always targetted to increase the appeal of the merchandising and some teams change the official uniforms just to make them more attractive to people to buy replicas. A lot of hockey teams switched to black for little more reason than this. Some teams went to other trendy colors as well.

And I'm not crying over any imagined loss of revenue from Danny Snyder. His mismanagement of the team took them from a "sold out with a waiting list in the decades" to the situation he is in now. Jack Cook might have been a bastard, but he knew business.
 
Every time I hear about some group upset because they are offended and try to get an image or a flag banned... or some person who said a word banned I just don't really get it.

I am unable to conceive of a word or logo or anything that would make me so upset I'd feel the need to try to prevent others from or punish them for using it.
 
nddons said:
Six of them, including the Redskinettes, according to SI.com.

What a great use of government resources. :mad:

This PC **** is out of control. Discuss.
Click to expand...

An issue was needed that could shift focus from the IRS, Benghazi, Obamacare, economy, etc.
 
EppyGA said:
Trademark law passed in 1871, Washington Redskins came into being in 1932 yet it took til 1992 for folks to be upset :dunno:

Where in the Constitution is the right to not be offended?
Click to expand...

It's right there with the right to abortion.

Will the Green Bay Packers have to change their name? Cleveland Indians? Atlanta Braves?
Click to expand...

Why the Packers?
 
Matthew said:
Unfortunately, I think with the government involvement now it's just going to turn more people more stubborn against a name change.

If the league decided, or the owners decided, that the current name was costing them $, they'd find a way to ease out of it and folks would probably understand that business is business. Now, it's turned into another case of "the feds are sticking their noses where they don't belong...again" and polarizing the sides even more.
Click to expand...
Totally agree with this. The name change should have come because of societal and business pressure. The government should have remained neutral.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top