Palefaces: Redskins' Name OK

[epraz]

I agree with your interpretation.  It will be marginally more difficult for the Redskins to enforce TM rights if this holds up, but it doesn't spell doom for the exploitation of the mark.  Trademark law's purpose is to reduce confusion in the marketplace, and therefore should work to protect the consuming public as much (or more) than the commercial enterprise.  A judge might not like the Redskin's offensive mark, but the infringers won't be sympathetic parties either.

 

[dynomite]

Well, I don't know about that. If -- years down the road -- the team actually loses the appeal and really does lose registered trademark protection, the league/owners might step in and ask them to change their name.

Remember, every team (except "America's" Cowboys) shares merchandise revenue equally. Perhaps no one in America hates screwing around with profit margins and endangering revenue more than NFL owners (see, e.g., Jerry Richardson) -- I can't imagine they would have much tolerance for this if there are people actively infringing and costing them royalties.

 

[DJnVa]

Well, I don't know about that. If -- years down the road -- the team actually loses the appeal and really does lose registered trademark protection, the league/owners might step in and ask them to change their name.

Remember, every team (except "America's" Cowboys) shares merchandise revenue equally. Perhaps no one in America hates screwing around with profit margins and endangering revenue more than NFL owners (see, e.g., Jerry Richardson) -- I can't imagine they would have much tolerance for this if there are people actively infringing and costing them royalties.

 
 
How much are they really going to lose? Diehard fans will still buy their official gear. Sure some others may now make some knockoffs that Cowboys and Eagles fans may want (assuming it's dumping on the  team from DC)---but in the end, how much will they actually lose, when it's divided 31 times?
 
 
Also, if Redskins is a slur (and I believe it is), why are so many people still using it in this thread?

 

[wade boggs chicken dinner]

I agree with your interpretation.  It will be marginally more difficult for the Redskins to enforce TM rights if this holds up, but it doesn't spell doom for the exploitation of the mark.  Trademark law's purpose is to reduce confusion in the marketplace, and therefore should work to protect the consuming public as much (or more) than the commercial enterprise.  A judge might not like the Redskin's offensive mark, but the infringers won't be sympathetic parties either.

 
I don't know anything about trademark law so this could be off-base, but an article I read said something to the effect that registration lists are used by US Customs to bar merchandise.  Losing the registration means that foreign knock-offs wouldn't be stopped at the border. 
 
If true, that would be a big deal.
 
If not true, well that's just the interweb striking again.

 

[Varitekstheman]

What am I missing? What does this have to do with the Obama administration?

 
 

Obama raids Redskins by weaponizing USPTO. Cancels Redskins logo! Free people will not tolerate a Kim Jong POTUS. Steve King (@SteveKingIA)
 
 
 

 
 
Obvi.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

 
Honest question #1: do you not see the difference between "Braves", "Black Hawks", and "Seminoles" compared to "Redskins"?

 
A better list would include the infantile habits of all countries and many of their infantile citizens to create infantile racist names for all the people they've decided to infantilely hate versus Luis trying to come up with false equivalents:
 
The Houston Dinks
The San Francisco Yellow Devils
The Sacramento Zipperheads 
The Los Angeles Rail Hoppers
The New York Kikes
The Chicago Krauts
The Milwaukee DP's
The St. Louis Coons
The San Diego Berry Pickers
The Providence Dagos
The Detroit Towel Heads
The Boston Paddy's
The Philadelphia Wankers
The Brooklyn Vodkalky's
 
 
and The Washington Redskins

 

[Myt1]

Um, Congress SHOULD be focusing on other things.

What do you think they missed out on while the false dilemma Olympics was going on?

 

[Myt1]

I am done, stated my opinion, which we are allowed in this country, I think......

You are.

In my opinion, you're a fucking douchebag.

 

[Myt1]

 
True, they aren't banning the speech, but they are designating what speech you cannot profit off of, which seems to me to be overstepping their bounds.  Who gave them the power to determine what is offensive speech?

They're not. Congress has exercised its delegated power to limit the number of people who can profit off of certain speech and explicitly carved out an exception to that limit.

The short answer to your question is: a whole bunch of people in the late 1700s.

 

[Luis Taint]

You are.

In my opinion, you're a fucking douchebag.

Words hurt

 

[Myt1]

One of the press statements released today sums it up well: this case is about a private business drawing on taxpayer resources to protect its ability to profit from the use of a racial slur.

Exactly.

 

[geoduck no quahog]

Words hurt

 
As does ignorance.

 

[DennyDoyle'sBoil]

I am looking forward to the day Washington's football team has a different name.

That said, I think the constitutional problems with section 2(a) are significant. There is not much law in this area. Most people hate the term in question here, but you could easily change the facts and get a bit more traction on a first amendment argument. For example, imagine the PTO found scandalous or disparaging a mark evoking same sex relationships used for an online dating service but not a virtually identical mark for opposite sex services. (This is actually not that far from one of the only cases on the issue -- a case over 20 years old that has some cringeworthy language about "traditional" marriage.)

That the government is selectively denying a government created benefit instead of depriving speech makes a bit of difference for First Amendment purposes, but not a dispositive one. The case is not free from doubt, but this to me is pretty close to a governmental content-based denial of a benefit to commercial speech. This isn't my area, but based on my rudimentary understanding of the law here, I lean toward this being an unconstitutional application of section 2(a), even though that is a disappointing result to me in this particular case.

 

[Luis Taint]

 
A better list would include the infantile habits of all countries and many of their infantile citizens to create infantile racist names for all the people they've decided to infantilely hate versus Luis trying to come up with false equivalents:
 
The Houston Dinks
The San Francisco Yellow Devils
The Sacramento Zipperheads 
The Los Angeles Rail Hoppers
The New York Kikes
The Chicago Krauts
The Milwaukee DP's
The St. Louis Coons
The San Diego Berry Pickers
The Providence Dagos
The Detroit Towel Heads
The Boston Paddy's
The Philadelphia Wankers
The Brooklyn Vodkalky's
 
 
and The Washington Redskins

I would buy a Boston Paddy's hat immediately.

 

[Tony C]

Mods, any chance this thread can be moved to V&N?

 
no kiddin'...why is this lame piss-fist of the self-righteous here?

 

[moondog80]

When I prepare for/engage in battle with my kids, I try to figure out as early as possible if I'm ultimately going to win with minimal collateral damage, and if the answer if no, find an exit strategy ASAP that doesn't undercut my authority.  That's what Snyder needs to do here.  I'm not comparing people rallying against the name to 5 year olds getting one more story before bed, but for better or for worse, Snyder is going to lose this battle.  The name is going to end up changing.  He can do it magnanimously -- claim to have had an epiphany -- or he can go kicking and screaming and end up on the wrong side of history. 

 

[Van Everyman]

Exactly.

Yup.

Not gonna lie: I love everything about this -- in particular that it has put Snyder in the crosshairs in a way that no number of City Paper exposes about expired peanut sales ever could.

As with the Sterling imbroglio, this is exactly the kind of thing that would have died a quiet death less than a decade ago but in large part because social media has amplified things and leadership is becoming attuned to it, people are lingering longer on the implications than they otherwise would and giving an otherwise faceless government entity the cover they need to apply the appropriate level of pressure. All good things.

 

[Leather]

Words hurt

 
Is this irony?

 

[mabrowndog]

Bob Raskopf, Redskins' trademark attorney, was just on Mike & Mike. Greenberg's final question was to ask him point blank if he thought the word was a slur. Raskopf hesitated and stumbled, clearly unprepared for it. Then he said, "The word Redskin is defined in most dictionaries as a North American Indian" and "There's no way anyone can say it's a disparaging term."
 
O RLY?
 

 
 
I understand carrying the water for the guy who pays your bills, but this guy didn't do himself, his client, or his argument any favors with that embarrassing display.

 

[cromulence]

I am assuming this is aimed at me, seeing as how this thread is going. Leave it up I don't care. I am not a cry baby, I can take a shot as well as give it. That is the difference between the left and right.

 
 I know I'm way late here, but goddamn, you're the worst. Seriously, you are the embodiment of so many terrible things about American culture. Get fucked.

 

[mabrowndog]

I am assuming this is aimed at me, seeing as how this thread is going. Leave it up I don't care. I am not a cry baby, I can take a shot as well as give it. That is the difference between the left and right.

 
I've been a registered Republican since 1982. You're an asshole.
 
You're seriously trying to make this a left/right issue? Where did you get your master's degree in stupidity and your doctorate in ignorance?

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

 
 I know I'm way late here, but goddamn, you're the worst. Seriously, you are the embodiment of so many terrible things about American culture. Get fucked.

There was an article in the Herald today, trying to drum up fear that HS now will lose their nicknames (ummm...what?).  Some have cooperated with local tribes (I know the HS i am at now, way back in the 50's had the original Chief of the local tribe...or maybe it was his son...come in and pose for the mascot picture and it has never been an issue.  Anytime that I can read the Herald comments and be 100% against them, I know I am on the right side of history.  It's just disappointing to see comments here that could easily be on there.

 

[IdiotKicker]

The biggest problem with the slippery slope argument for things like this is that it essentially assumes that we have an inability to judge between worthwhile claims of people taking offense, and claims that are hot air.  We don't.  If someone came to me and said, "Change the name of the Boston Bruins because bears are stuck in the zoo", I'd kindly tell them to pound sand.  If someone said, "Change the name of the Oklahoma City Thunder because lightning killed my mother," I don't think we'd have a 600+ reply thread about it.  There is a difference between using a term that has historically been used to oppress people and prevent them from enjoying the rights available to other people, and using a term that someone may have simply had a bad experience with due to unfortunate circumstances.  This isn't that complicated.  You have a word that represents a terrible history for a shitload of people.  The only reason that word exists is because of hate.  It has no other reason to be spoken on a daily basis.  Those other names, even if you want to get into the Celtics, Vikings, or whoever else, actually have reasons for existence beyond trying to oppress a group of people.  So what are we arguing about here?

 

[PC Drunken Friar]

The biggest problem with the slippery slope argument for things like this is that it essentially assumes that we have an inability to judge between worthwhile claims of people taking offense, and claims that are hot air.  We don't.  If someone came to me and said, "Change the name of the Boston Bruins because bears are stuck in the zoo", I'd kindly tell them to pound sand.  If someone said, "Change the name of the Oklahoma City Thunder because lightning killed my mother," I don't think we'd have a 600+ reply thread about it.  There is a difference between using a term that has historically been used to oppress people and prevent them from enjoying the rights available to other people, and using a term that someone may have simply had a bad experience with due to unfortunate circumstances.  This isn't that complicated.  You have a word that represents a terrible history for a shitload of people.  The only reason that word exists is because of hate.  It has no other reason to be spoken on a daily basis.  Those other names, even if you want to get into the Celtics, Vikings, or whoever else, actually have reasons for existence beyond trying to oppress a group of people.  So what are we arguing about here?

Well put.

 

[bankshot1]

Rather than wait for Snyder having an epiphany, or for the appeals process to run its course, (and he may win) perhaps what may be needed here is a stance from corporate America that it does not want its image associated with the Redskins. For example, certain of the network's large advertisers demand their ads not run during a Redskin games, or WalMart saying that Redskin attire will not be available in their stores, on-line, or that Fed-EX asks to remove their name from the Stadium. I understand this is fantasy, but...

 

[bakahump]

Woohoo....I can finally download the "Hail to the Redskins" torrent with no worries.
 
Can I download some Rap songs that also have slurs?

 

[DJnVa]

Can I download some Rap songs that also have slurs?

 
No.
 
Because you capitalized "rap".

 

[MalzoneExpress]

The biggest problem with the slippery slope argument for things like this is that it essentially assumes that we have an inability to judge between worthwhile claims of people taking offense, and claims that are hot air.  We don't.  If someone came to me and said, "Change the name of the Boston Bruins because bears are stuck in the zoo", I'd kindly tell them to pound sand.  If someone said, "Change the name of the Oklahoma City Thunder because lightning killed my mother," I don't think we'd have a 600+ reply thread about it.  There is a difference between using a term that has historically been used to oppress people and prevent them from enjoying the rights available to other people, and using a term that someone may have simply had a bad experience with due to unfortunate circumstances.  This isn't that complicated.  You have a word that represents a terrible history for a shitload of people.  The only reason that word exists is because of hate.  It has no other reason to be spoken on a daily basis.  Those other names, even if you want to get into the Celtics, Vikings, or whoever else, actually have reasons for existence beyond trying to oppress a group of people.  So what are we arguing about here?

 
What about Crusaders (Holy Cross)? Could we have a Muslim mascot call the Jihadists? I'm just asking. 
 
I do not support keeping the Redskin name. Culture changes over time. What was once acceptable is no longer acceptable. Words also change or take on new meanings over time. In the here and now, we should not have a mascot called the Redskins. The Philadelphia Wankers on the other hand seems perfectly fine to me.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

The biggest problem with the slippery slope argument for things like this is that it essentially assumes that we have an inability to judge between worthwhile claims of people taking offense, and claims that are hot air.  We don't. 

 
Pussy.

 

[IdiotKicker]

 
What about Crusaders (Holy Cross)? Could we have a Muslim mascot call the Jihadists? I'm just asking. 
 
I do not support keeping the Redskin name. Culture changes over time. What was once acceptable is no longer acceptable. Words also change or take on new meanings over time. In the here and now, we should not have a mascot called the Redskins. The Philadelphia Wankers on the other hand seems perfectly fine to me.

 
In the case of Crusaders, you have the very people who are being described making the choice for that usage, I don't see a problem with it.  They are self-identifying with the term, which is pretty much the opposite of Redskins.  If a Muslim school wanted to call themselves the Jihadists, they're free to do so.  I doubt they would attract a huge fanbase here, but it's their call.  Would I, as someone who's Jewish, go and start a team named the Jihadists?  No, I think that would be pointless, but still probably not even as bad as Redskins, just because the word "jihadist" actually has some type of use beyond pure hate.  The issue isn't that some terms are offensive, because if you look hard enough, any term can be offensive.  The issue, as I see it, is that you have a word being used by one group of people that has no purpose other than to denigrate, and the people who it denigrates believe that is not an appropriate name for them to use.
 

 
Pussy.

 
Dick.

 

[Luis Taint]

 
Is this irony?

more like sarcasm

 

[Luis Taint]

 
I've been a registered Republican since 1982. You're an asshole.
 
You're seriously trying to make this a left/right issue? Where did you get your master's degree in stupidity and your doctorate in ignorance?

At least you didn't call me a pussy, the SOSH bad word police would come down on you with the fire 1000 burning suns. 

 

[Orange Julia]

At least you didn't call me a pussy, the SOSH bad word police would come down on you with the fire 1000 burning suns. 

I know pussies. I have one. Some of my best friends are pussies. You are no pussy.

 

[SMU_Sox]

This guy is a clueless jackass - (and no, I am neither a liberal or a conservative).
 
The ignore button is your friend.

 

[Luis Taint]

This guy is a clueless jackass - (and no, I am neither a liberal or a conservative).
 
The ignore button is your friend

stop being a baby

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I know pussies. I have one several. Some of my best friends are pussies. You are no pussy.

 

 

[IdiotKicker]

 

 
Look at all those Redcats.

 

[Luis Taint]

To take shit from this board is hysterical. You mock and ridicule a kid who died in a car accident(Nick Adenhart) or a plane crash(Munson or Lidle) but get all offended when someone has an opinion differing from yours, hypocrites. You are the types of people who love free speech, but when someone dissents on yours, you get all offended and can't take it. I have said nothing out of school, nothing that wasn't proffered on any cable news show last night on CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

 

[Orange Julia]

 
Look at all those Redcats.

"Feline Americans," thank you very much.

 

[SMU_Sox]

To take shit from this board is hysterical. You mock and ridicule a kid who died in a car accident(Nick Adenhart) or a plane crash(Munson or Lidle) but get all offended when someone has an opinion differing from yours, hypocrites. 

 

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

To take shit from this board is hysterical. You mock and ridicule a kid who died in a car accident(Nick Adenhart) or a plane crash(Munson or Lidle) but get all offended when someone has an opinion differing from yours, hypocrites. You are the types of people who love free speech, but when someone dissents on yours, you get all offended and can't take it. I have said nothing out of school, nothing that wasn't proffered on any cable news show last night on CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

 
I don't think the problem is that you have a different opinion (although the first wave of responses are generally to shout down those with differing opinions).
 
The larger problem is that your posts are basically "Murica!"

 

[simplyeric]

 
In the case of Crusaders, you have the very people who are being described making the choice for that usage, I don't see a problem with it.  They are self-identifying with the term, which is pretty much the opposite of Redskins.  If a Muslim school wanted to call themselves the Jihadists, they're free to do so.  I doubt they would attract a huge fanbase here, but it's their call.  Would I, as someone who's Jewish, go and start a team named the Jihadists?  No, I think that would be pointless, but still probably not even as bad as Redskins, just because the word "jihadist" actually has some type of use beyond pure hate.  The issue isn't that some terms are offensive, because if you look hard enough, any term can be offensive.  The issue, as I see it, is that you have a word being used by one group of people that has no purpose other than to denigrate, and the people who it denigrates believe that is not an appropriate name for them to use.
 
 
Dick.

Jihad is a complex term in any case.



I found it interesting when the Patriots played v Buccaneers in London a few years back.

That's like 'The Terrorists Against the Crown' v 'The Crown-sponsored terrorists of the Seas'.

It would be like a 200-years-in-the-future international soccer match played in DC featuring The Kabul Al-Queda v. the Managua Contras.

I mean, not exactly, but still.

 

[richgedman'sghost]

I know pussies. I have one. Some of my best friends are pussies. You are no pussy.

Honestly I thought that word was "banned" or extremely "offensive". Why are some posters now allowed to use it. Not being sarcastic but it seems hypocritical to have 10,000 posts debating the meaning and effective obscenity of the word and now some of our female members are ok using the term.
P.S. I happen to think Redskins is an offensive term and that Louis Taint is wrong.

 

[PBDWake]

To take shit from this board is hysterical. You mock and ridicule a kid who died in a car accident(Nick Adenhart) or a plane crash(Munson or Lidle) but get all offended when someone has an opinion differing from yours, hypocrites. You are the types of people who love free speech, but when someone dissents on yours, you get all offended and can't take it. I have said nothing out of school, nothing that wasn't proffered on any cable news show last night on CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

There have been no calls for you to be banned, no calls to kick you out, no requests for you to stop posting. In fact, you've been invited to try and come back and explain your view several times.
 
But you've said some ridiculous things that deserve to be mocked. So we did. There's a difference between being silenced and being called out. 

 

[SMU_Sox]

Rich, I think they are using the word in an ironic way to mock monsieur taint.

 

[IdiotKicker]

 

It would be like a 200-years-in-the-future international soccer match played in DC featuring The Kabul Al-Queda v. the Managua Contras.

 
Aired on Al-Jazeera 7: "An explosive offense versus a take-no-prisoners defense"

 

[Myt1]

To take shit from this board is hysterical. You mock and ridicule a kid who died in a car accident(Nick Adenhart) or a plane crash(Munson or Lidle) but get all offended when someone has an opinion differing from yours, hypocrites. You are the types of people who love free speech, but when someone dissents on yours, you get all offended and can't take it. I have said nothing out of school, nothing that wasn't proffered on any cable news show last night on CNN, MSNBC or Fox.

No one is offended by you or can't take it. But three posts after pounding your chest about being different from those whiny leftists, you're climbing up on your cross because people hurt your feelings.

You're a douchebag and a puppet for knee jerkingly introducing Obama into the discussion. And you're not very smart. People are simply pointing that out. Freedom of speech and all that.

 

[MalzoneExpress]

Honestly I thought that word was "banned" or extremely "offensive". Why are some posters now allowed to use it. Not being sarcastic but it seems hypocritical to have 10,000 posts debating the meaning and effective obscenity of the word and now some of our female members are ok using the term.
P.S. I happen to think Redskins is an offensive term and that Louis Taint is wrong.

 
Let me try to explain it to you. Just like African Americans are allowed to use the N-word, female Sons of Sam Hornies are allowed to use the P-word.

 

[Luis Taint]

No one is offended by you or can't take it. But three posts after pounding your chest about being different from those whiny leftists, you're climbing up on your cross because people hurt your feelings.

You're a douchebag and a puppet for knee jerkingly introducing Obama into the discussion. And you're not very smart. People are simply pointing that out. Freedom of speech and all that

My feelings aren't hurt, I couldn't care less. I made my point, you didn't care for my point.

 

[cornwalls@6]

 
no kiddin'...why is this lame piss-fist of the self-righteous here?

 

Amen. This whole fucking train-wreck of a thread has been an all-time SOSH low.