U.S. Patent office cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging
Quote:The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”
The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed.
“This victory was a long time coming and reflects the hard work of many attorneys at our firm,” said lead attorney Jesse Witten, of Drinker Biddle & Reath.
Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”
When I read this I literally said "Holy Shit". Very heavy handed move by the US Government. Then again I am 1/4 Native American and am not thrilled by the name in anyway.
Quote:Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or “bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”
How did they get them in the firt place or was it long before the law as such existed and this is a post law change retrospective action ?
(06-18-2014, 10:12 AM)GoldenVulture Wrote: [ -> ]How did they get them in the firt place or was it long before the law as such existed and this is a post law change retrospective action ?
The name is 70 years old. 70 years ago Indians were referred to as Redskins in all kinds of media. That being said most of the terms used to reference African Americans in media 70 years ago could get you killed for using them today.
If the Native American population was as numerous as the African-American population I bet it would be the same situation.
I'm not crazy about the name, but I don't believe the use is intended to be disparaging. In fact, it could be argued that the name is worn with pride by the players and fans.
There is a joke in this somewhere. I'm not sure who it targets, though.
(06-18-2014, 01:23 PM)LesStrat Wrote: [ -> ]I'm not crazy about the name, but I don't believe the use is intended to be disparaging.
The Racist Redskins
Quote:When George Preston Marshall died in 1969, he left some money to his children but directed that the bulk of his estate be used to set up a foundation in his name. He attached, however, one firm condition: that the foundation, operating out of Washington, D.C., should not direct a single dollar toward “any purpose which supports or employs the principle of racial integration in any form.” Think about that. This was not 1929 or 1949. Even in 1960 such a diktat might have been, well, “understandable” in a Southern city such as Washington then was. But 1969; “in any form.”
This is the man who gave the Washington Redskins their name. He was one of the most despicable racists in the American sporting arena of the entire 20th century. He thought Redskins was funny, just as he thought the war paint and feather headdress he made the head coach wear were funny.
Quote:Telling, but not surprising. This is a man who proposed to his wife against the backdrop of a group of black performers he’d hired to croon “Carry Me Back to Ol’ Virginny” as he popped the question (“Massa and Missus have long since gone before me / Soon we will meet on that bright and golden shore”). Who ordered the Redskins marching band to play “Dixie” right before “The Star-Spangled Banner” prior to every game—up into the 1960s. And who probably instigated the banning of black athletes from the NFL from 1933 until 1946.
Quote:Most famously of all, Marshall was the last owner to accept a black player—fully 15 years after the ban was lifted. And his team drafted an African-American then (in 1961) only because it was forced to by the government—the then-new stadium that we call RFK Stadium today was built on Department of Interior land, which permitted the Kennedy administration to order the lessee (the team) to adhere to federal nondiscrimination policies. In other words, Marshall wasn’t merely a standard-issue racist of the time, like H.L. Mencken or countless others. He was diseased. He seethed with hatred of nonwhite people. And “Redskins” is his handiwork. Because “Braves” wasn’t quite descriptive enough.
I was referring to current usage.
I am not opposed to a name change. I'm not sure it was the duty of the WH to force it on a private entity.
After all, aren't there more terrorists that need releasing?
(06-18-2014, 01:38 PM)LesStrat Wrote: [ -> ]I was referring to current usage.
I am not opposed to a name change. I'm not sure it was the duty of the WH to force it on a private entity.
After all, aren't there more terrorists that need releasing?
I hear ya, but it was the US Patent office that lifted the trademark, and no, they don't have anything better to do than that. That is what they do.
Don't mind me, I'm enjoying the shitshow not being around my home team for once but with a team in the same division.
I don't buy that they issued the order independently. The POTUS recently made a public statement regarding the name. He rarely does things directly, and this is PRECISELY the type of move I would expect from him...make an indirect attack and deny any involvement.
That said, I'll reiterate that I do not oppose a name change...unless they choose something truly offensive such as the "politicians", or the "congressmen."