Washington Football Team is now the Washington Commanders

Ferm Sheller

Member
SoSH Member
Mar 5, 2007
17,244
The chart below shows recent trademark application filings. Many were filed by the same attorney in VA on July 6th. ("The Washington Herald" was filed by the Washington Herald, of course, and Radskins, Braves, Potomacs, and War Hogs seem to have been made by filers unrelated to the Washington professional football team.)

[TH] Serial Number[/TH] [TH]Reg. Number[/TH] [TH]Word Mark[/TH] [TH]Check Status[/TH] [TH]Live/Dead[/TH] [TH][/TH]
1 90036691 WASHINGTON MONUMENTS TSDR LIVE
2 90036682 WASHINGTON VETERANS TSDR LIVE
3 90036672 WASHINGTON RENEGADES GRIDIRON FOOTBALL TSDR LIVE
4 90036282 WASHINGTON BRAVES PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM TSDR LIVE
5 90036248 WASHINGTON REDTAILS TSDR LIVE
6 90036108 WASHINGTON FREEDOM FIGHTERS (WFF) TSDR LIVE
7 90036103 WASHINGTON FREEDOM FIGHTERS TSDR LIVE
8 90036057 WASHINGTON WAR HOGS TSDR LIVE
9 90035687 WASHINGTON RADSKINS TSDR LIVE
10 90035600 WASHINGTON RED-TAILED HAWKS TSDR LIVE
11 90035054 WASHINGTON POTOMACS TSDR LIVE
12 90023930 THE WASHINGTON HERALD TSDR LIVE
13 90009366 WASHINGTON AMERICANS TSDR LIVE



 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
I haven't seen a good one, but I'm open to examples if you have one.
How many times have we seen a decision have bad unintended consequences? A lot. It’s mainly because not enough thought has been given to the possible end game.

Consider the aftermath of 9/11. We started profiling Middle eastern Muslims. We tapped phones. We did a bunch of things that were, Uh, questionable, all in the immediate reaction to the terrorist attack.

A good use of the slippery slope there could have said, ok if we do A, what about A+1? What about A+2? And it wouldn’t be long before you see that if we follow the track of A, we could head into pretty terrible waters (as we in fact did). Dismissing such thinking as pure laziness takes away a potentially helpful tool in thinking through the down-the-line consequences.

In the statue demolishing we are seeing, it’s reasonable to ask, ok if Lee goes, how about Jefferson? If Jefferson, how about Washington? If Washington, how about Lincoln, who yes won the Civil war and pushed through the 13th amendment, but the 13th amendment has been used to create all sorts of injustices in the criminal justice system. So maybe he should go too.

And so on. It forces us to focus our thinking on which statues should go and WHY they should go.

We might not agree on the landing spot but that’s the opposite of intellectual laziness. Thats getting people to think through their ideas more thoroughly.
 

Oppo

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 5, 2009
1,576
The best argument I’ve heard is simply asking if you’d keep a Hitler statue up?

Counterpoint: I don’t think it’s a leap to start with tearing down statues of X and leading to that branching out. There’s not a single person that has lived a faultless life, including presidents, popes, athletes, trailblazers, etc. Then museums and other education institutions pull exhibits, books get rewritten, and we repeat all the atrocities from history. You could see that extended out to any structure build by slaves or a mistreated class (like the pyramids, although there’s debate on the extent of widespread slave labor with that).
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,838
Mansfield MA
In the statue demolishing we are seeing, it’s reasonable to ask, ok if Lee goes, how about Jefferson? If Jefferson, how about Washington? If Washington, how about Lincoln, who yes won the Civil war and pushed through the 13th amendment, but the 13th amendment has been used to create all sorts of injustices in the criminal justice system. So maybe he should go too.

And so on. It forces us to focus our thinking on which statues should go and WHY they should go.

We might not agree on the landing spot but that’s the opposite of intellectual laziness. Thats getting people to think through their ideas more thoroughly.
I agree with you, but this is the opposite of a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope people are saying "we can't take down Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederate Flag because next it'll be Lee, then Jefferson and Washington, etc. It's a slippery slope." They use the idea of a "slippery slope" to avoid having these kind of hard, important discussions about where we draw the line. They say it's hard to draw the line, so let's never do anything.
 

PC Drunken Friar

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 12, 2003
13,347
South Boston
The best argument I’ve heard is simply asking if you’d keep a Hitler statue up?

Counterpoint: I don’t think it’s a leap to start with tearing down statues of X and leading to that branching out. There’s not a single person that has lived a faultless life, including presidents, popes, athletes, trailblazers, etc. Then museums and other education institutions pull exhibits, books get rewritten, and we repeat all the atrocities from history. You could see that extended out to any structure build by slaves or a mistreated class (like the pyramids, although there’s debate on the extent of widespread slave labor with that).
I ain't the smartest man in the world...but are you suggesting that taking down a fucking Robert E. Lee statue up could one day lead to the dismantling of the pyramids?
 

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
43,044
Hartford, CT
I agree with you, but this is the opposite of a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope people are saying "we can't take down Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederate Flag because next it'll be Lee, then Jefferson and Washington, etc. It's a slippery slope." They use the idea of a "slippery slope" to avoid having these kind of hard, important discussions about where we draw the line. They say it's hard to draw the line, so let's never do anything.
Yes, invocation of the slippery slope argument is generally being made in bad faith, sometimes in conjunction with an observation that everyone is overreacting/being too sensitive. I don’t think that’s as prevalent here, and you’re not doing this, BJ, but if you gander over to the Indians thread in the MLB forum there are a few tasty morsels in there.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
I agree with you, but this is the opposite of a slippery slope argument. The slippery slope people are saying "we can't take down Nathan Bedford Forrest and the Confederate Flag because next it'll be Lee, then Jefferson and Washington, etc. It's a slippery slope." They use the idea of a "slippery slope" to avoid having these kind of hard, important discussions about where we draw the line. They say it's hard to draw the line, so let's never do anything.
Yes maybe we're just thinking of this differently. I think of poor use of the slippery slope argument as being what you're describing, and a good use of the slippery slope argument as being what I'm describing. In either case we're moving from starting point A to potential scenarios X, Y, and Z as a consequence of starting down the A road, but in one instance it's meant to shut the conversation down (what I call the poor use) and in the other instance it's meant to foster intellectual debate (what I call the good use).

You see the former as the slippery slope argument and the latter as *not* the slippery slope argument.
 

Awesome Fossum

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
3,099
Austin, TX
I think "where do we draw the line?" is an actual question NFL leadership needs to be asking, because while it's obviously somewhere between Redskins and Vikings, where our reigning champions fall is slightly less clear. And if the line is past the Chiefs, the NFL should be working to be getting ahead of that now. The Redskins have given them a lot of cover by being the most egregious instance in the NFL. That (probably) won't be the case for much longer.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,838
Mansfield MA
Yes maybe we're just thinking of this differently. I think of poor use of the slippery slope argument as being what you're describing, and a good use of the slippery slope argument as being what I'm describing. In either case we're moving from starting point A to potential scenarios X, Y, and Z as a consequence of starting down the A road, but in one instance it's meant to shut the conversation down (what I call the poor use) and in the other instance it's meant to foster intellectual debate (what I call the good use).

You see the former as the slippery slope argument and the latter as *not* the slippery slope argument.
Yes. The idea of the "slippery slope" analogy is that once we start down this slope, we lose our ability to distinguish between scenarios X, Y, and Z because the slope is "slippery" and we are bound to just keep sliding down. So I don't think a serious discussion about what is and isn't appropriate falls into the "slippery slope" category because it's not making the assumption that some appropriate change necessarily leads to some inappropriate change. Your "good slippery slopes" aren't "slippery."
 

Zedia

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 17, 2005
5,998
Pasadena, CA
Yes maybe we're just thinking of this differently. I think of poor use of the slippery slope argument as being what you're describing, and a good use of the slippery slope argument as being what I'm describing. In either case we're moving from starting point A to potential scenarios X, Y, and Z as a consequence of starting down the A road, but in one instance it's meant to shut the conversation down (what I call the poor use) and in the other instance it's meant to foster intellectual debate (what I call the good use).

You see the former as the slippery slope argument and the latter as *not* the slippery slope argument.
Asking “what about Jefferson and Washington” when talking about taking down a statue of a literal traitor Isn’t “fostering debate”. Besides the question being irrelevant, what‘s the unintended negative consequence you’re worried about? That people might reconsider their perspectives on who they choose to venerate? Who cares?
 

bankshot1

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 12, 2003
22,933
where I was last at
I don't think the slope is that slippery. When Washington and Jefferson owned slaves, it was legal for them to do so. I've no idea whether they were benevolent or cruel over and above what passed for cruel in their time. Looking back 270+ years, its easy to pass moral judgement on them, using our contemporary views of right and wrong, and say our founding fathers were amoral and exploited and profited from the slavery. But they founded this country, fought for this country, and are recognized as patriots and great Amercians. The Confederate generals etal, were traitors and went to war against this country, specifically to maintain the right to continue slavery. There's a difference, at least I see one, and am comfortable with the distinction.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
Asking “what about Jefferson and Washington” when talking about taking down a statue of a literal traitor Isn’t “fostering debate”. Besides the question being irrelevant, what‘s the unintended negative consequence you’re worried about? That people might reconsider their perspectives on who they choose to venerate? Who cares?
These questions are utterly beside my point and I'm not going to get dragged into that conversation.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
Yes. The idea of the "slippery slope" analogy is that once we start down this slope, we lose our ability to distinguish between scenarios X, Y, and Z because the slope is "slippery" and we are bound to just keep sliding down. So I don't think a serious discussion about what is and isn't appropriate falls into the "slippery slope" category because it's not making the assumption that some appropriate change necessarily leads to some inappropriate change. Your "good slippery slopes" aren't "slippery."
I see them as exactly that - slippery slopes. A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, so maybe we should consider whether we want to do A and possibly start down this road. Or at least tell me why A is worth doing even if it leads to D.

That's pretty much, as far as I understand it, the essence of a slippery slope argument.
 

The Talented Allen Ripley

holden
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 2, 2003
12,493
MetroWest, MA
I see them as exactly that - slippery slopes. A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, so maybe we should consider whether we want to do A and possibly start down this road. Or at least tell me why A is worth doing even if it leads to D.

That's pretty much, as far as I understand it, the essence of a slippery slope argument.
Around a decade ago or so, when same-sex marriage was the legislative cause of the day, the slippery-slope argument said that we couldn't allow same-sex marriage because then maybe polygamy would be made legal, or inter-family marriage, or human-animal marriage.

Still want to go down this road? Or slope?
 

Marciano490

Urological Expert
SoSH Member
Nov 4, 2007
56,515
Slippery slopes are the laziest most fatuous arguments. They can be applied to any decision ever made. Society and law is all about line drawing. Banning the use of a racial slur against people who have been historically abused isn’t the top of any kind of slope. It’s something that should’ve been on the other side of a red line from the jump.
 

Royal Reader

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2005
2,013
UK
I think "where do we draw the line?" is an actual question NFL leadership needs to be asking, because while it's obviously somewhere between Redskins and Vikings, where our reigning champions fall is slightly less clear. And if the line is past the Chiefs, the NFL should be working to be getting ahead of that now. The Redskins have given them a lot of cover by being the most egregious instance in the NFL. That (probably) won't be the case for much longer.
There's a Rugby team in England called the "Exeter Chiefs." They have an NA in full head dress as their logo. It isn't even a longstanding tradition - it was adopted in the early 2000s during a wave of Rugby teams adopting US Pro Sports like names (other teams adopted "Sharks," "Warriors" and "Falcons," while other teams that had longstanding traditional nicknames -"Tigers" and "Saints" - formalized those names.

There are currently rival petitions circulating to change and keep the logo. The guy who started the keep petition argued that it can't possibly be racist, because he's seen people of different races wearing it. The thing that maddens me is that it would be easy enough to not change the name, because you can just swap in an ancient Briton Celtic clan Chieftain. But people get so damn defensive over a fifteen-year old sports logo that was dumb at the time.
 

mauf

Anderson Cooper × Mr. Rogers
Staff member
Dope
I see them as exactly that - slippery slopes. A leads to B which leads to C which leads to D, so maybe we should consider whether we want to do A and possibly start down this road. Or at least tell me why A is worth doing even if it leads to D.

That's pretty much, as far as I understand it, the essence of a slippery slope argument.
The problem is that most “slippery slope” arguments assume a priori that the slope is slippery, even though most “slopes” are, in fact, not slippery.

In law, ethics, and life in general, few things are all or nothing. We draw distinctions all the time. We debate the cases that are close to the line.

Regarding the topic of this thread, there are a few places to draw a principled line. I suspect we’re going to throw “Redskins” and “Indians” overboard, have a robust debate over “Braves” and “Chiefs,” and leave alone “Celtics,” “Padres,” and “Vikings.”
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
Around a decade ago or so, when same-sex marriage was the legislative cause of the day, the slippery-slope argument said that we couldn't allow same-sex marriage because then maybe polygamy would be made legal, or inter-family marriage, or human-animal marriage.

Still want to go down this road? Or slope?
What are you talking about? And what does this have to do with what I’m saying?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
The problem is that most “slippery slope” arguments assume a priori that the slope is slippery, even though most “slopes” are, in fact, not slippery.

In law, ethics, and life in general, few things are all or nothing. We draw distinctions all the time. We debate the cases that are close to the line.

Regarding the topic of this thread, there are a few places to draw a principled line. I suspect we’re going to throw “Redskins” and “Indians” overboard, have a robust debate over “Braves” and “Chiefs,” and leave alone “Celtics,” “Padres,” and “Vikings.”
You could be right here. I think a number of people here are misunderstanding what I’m doing here. I’m not advocating where a line should be drawn or even looking to argue the slippery slope. I’m just saying that at times introducing a slippery slope can be helpful in terms of clarifying thinking - that is, it can help us focus on the principle we are talking about, whether it’s why we want to rename a team or how far we want to go to combat terrorism or which i monuments should come down or whatever the case may be.

I’m not actually arguing ANY of those particular slippery slopes. I’m talking about USES of the slippery slope argument. I happen to disagree with some of you in that I think that, when used well, they can be helpful to clarify thinking. That’s all I’m doing here.

I don’t mind if people disagree with me on this point. I don’t love that people think I’m actually arguing particular slippery slopes here.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
You brought the question up, I’m not dragging you into anything.
It was an illustration of a slippery slope. I’m arguing about the USE of a slippery slope argument, and I’ve mentioned several different situations where they could be used. I’m not actually arguing any of them per se.
 

joe dokes

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
26,213
I put more weight into the study I posted, in part because it's an actual study published in a peer-reviewed journal, and not just a Pew or newspaper poll.

Either way, of course there are American Indians who aren't offended, because they simply don't care, or because it's simply too exhausting to deal with the overwhelming amount of stereotyped representation from Westerns to the tomahawk chop, or for other reasons. I know American Indians like that but I also have American Indian friends and colleagues who are deeply wounded by such representation. Do you think Fawn Sharp, as president of the National Congress of American Indians, is completely out-of-line with her constituency?

Even if you don't care about those who are offended and/or wounded by the name and the logo, why fight to maintain it?
I don't think you need "a majority to be offended" for it to be offensive?
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,419
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Would you call a Native American a redskin to his or her face?

No?
No I would not. It's not a word I would ever consider using. And it's also a team name that 90% of NA's couldn't give a crap about. That ship appears to have sailed though so the New England Empathizers (new name for the Pats?) can now feel better that they've advocated a name change on behalf of the plebes who weren't smart enough to know they should be offended.

Would you be offended if Sean Hannity called you a Patriot?
 

Orel Miraculous

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2006
1,710
Mostly Airports and Hotels
What I hate about this conversation is the way defenders of Indian mascots insist that someone who wants them changed is "being offended on behalf of someone else." While they are unquestionably offensive, regardless of ethnic background, all Americans we should want to get rid of them just out of pure shame.

The facts and history are rather simple: the American government committed ethnic cleansing against an entire group of people. Cartoonish images of Indians and mascots played a role in this effort by dehumanizing Indians (it's a lot easier on the old conscience to wipe an entire group of people off the planet if you don't really see them as people to begin with). This dehumanization is so baked into our history and culture that it's hard to even see, but it takes many forms. The paper headbands with the feathers in them that kids make at school are part of it, with the way they turn traditional and sometimes sacred dress into Halloween costumes. The Hollywood depictions of Indians as silent and noble are part of it, with the way they make American Indians seem more like aspects of nature than actual humans with personalities. And above all else there are the mascots. The cartoonish faces, the mock war chants, and the gibberish names all serve to remove American Indians from the plane of fellow human beings and re-situate them with Giants, Bulldogs, and Fighting Cocks. It is pure dehumanization.

As an American, I'm offended and ashamed by their continued use. I don't need to be offended on behalf of someone else.
 

Orel Miraculous

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 16, 2006
1,710
Mostly Airports and Hotels
No I would not. It's not a word I would ever consider using. And it's also a team name that 90% of NA's couldn't give a crap about. That ship appears to have sailed though so the New England Empathizers (new name for the Pats?) can now feel better that they've advocated a name change on behalf of the plebes who weren't smart enough to know they should be offended.

Would you be offended if Sean Hannity called you a Patriot?
Before you cite this poll again for the 10th time in this thread, you should know that it was complete bullshit: https://news.berkeley.edu/2020/02/04/native-mascots-survey/
 

Montana Fan

Member
SoSH Member
Oct 18, 2000
8,419
Twin Bridges, Mt.
Multiple times the poll was done over multiple years with similar results. Please cite the peer reviewed study with the predetermined outcome as evidence that the other polls conducted over a 20 year period were wrong though.

I’m too late but I came back in here to delete my post as I don’t know why I’m even wasting my time.

Trilly, it’s time to go fishing.
 

snowmanny

Member
SoSH Member
Dec 8, 2005
14,424
What a weird thing to get so worked up about, defending a team nickname that is based on skin color.
 
Last edited:

Mystic Merlin

Member
SoSH Member
Sep 21, 2007
43,044
Hartford, CT
No I would not. It's not a word I would ever consider using. And it's also a team name that 90% of NA's couldn't give a crap about. That ship appears to have sailed though so the New England Empathizers (new name for the Pats?) can now feel better that they've advocated a name change on behalf of the plebes who weren't smart enough to know they should be offended.

Would you be offended if Sean Hannity called you a Patriot?
Does Chewbacca live on Endor?

The first two sentences of your post are revealing. This thread isn’t about the word ‘Redskins’ for you.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
Slippery-slope arguments suck. Stop typing.
Well goodness, because you said so, I guess it must be true, and I guess I must stop typing.

Look, I don't normally get into this kind of conversation (your last post and mine) because it's petty, juvenile bickering.

You raised a topic that wasn't remotely being discussed and tried to either pin it on me or get me to dive into it. I'm not taking the bait.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
5,056
from the wilds of western ma
A sane, reasonable society would shit can the skiing metaphors entirely, and look at, and think critically about these things on a case by case basis. And anyone with a working moral compass can see that Redskins, and something like chief wahoo, and tomahawk chops, are absolutely offensive and badly out of date. I think people of good will can probably debate the others. Of course, expecting sanity and reason in 2020 America is a big ask.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
A sane, reasonable society would shit can the skiing metaphors entirely, and look at, and think critically about these things on a case by case basis. And anyone with a working moral compass can see that Redskins, and something like chief wahoo, and tomahawk chops, are absolutely offensive and badly out of date. I think people of good will can probably debate the others. Of course, expecting sanity and reason in 2020 America is a big ask.
I would agree for the most part. Yet a non-insignificant percentage of Native Americans - the very people this term disparages - doesn't find it offensive and some of them are actually proud to have the team named that. If the story is even partly true, its name owes its origin in no small part to Native Americans on the team itself back in the day, who pushed for it.

So it's a little much to say that "anyone with a working moral compass..." unless you're saying that this non-insignificant percentage of Native Americans don't have one or don't understand that they're supposed to be gravely insulted.

To be clear: I am a proponent of a name change (lest anyone mistake my comments otherwise). My university addressed this issue years ago (Syracuse). It's the right thing to do, IMO. But it doesn't mean you have no working moral compass if you're a Native American and kind of like having this be the team name. It just means that you're not offended by it. We aren't all offended by the exact same things, or to the same degree.
 

cornwalls@6

Less observant than others
SoSH Member
Apr 23, 2010
5,056
from the wilds of western ma
I would agree for the most part. Yet a non-insignificant percentage of Native Americans - the very people this term disparages - doesn't find it offensive and some of them are actually proud to have the team named that. If the story is even partly true, its name owes its origin in no small part to Native Americans on the team itself back in the day, who pushed for it.

So it's a little much to say that "anyone with a working moral compass..." unless you're saying that this non-insignificant percentage of Native Americans don't have one or don't understand that they're supposed to be gravely insulted.

To be clear: I am a proponent of a name change (lest anyone mistake my comments otherwise). My university addressed this issue years ago (Syracuse). It's the right thing to do, IMO. But it doesn't mean you have no working moral compass if you're a Native American and kind of like having this be the team name. It just means that you're not offended by it. We aren't all offended by the exact same things, or to the same degree.
Fair points. And just to clarify, my post wasn’t directed at you. I agree that not all of these are clear cut. But putting aside some debatable polls that are often cited as a defense of the redskins name, I think using a term whose origins are as a racial slur, or having a clownish, undignified mascot like chief wahoo(that they were correct in discontinuing) should, and I think does, fall in the wheelhouse of a great many people, NA or otherwise, finding offensive. But I will stipulate, that most or many people, rather than anyone, would have been better wording in regards to my moral compass comment. And I say that without rancor or snark. I think my larger point holds: these are complicated topics that are probably best discussed individually , in a vacuum, rather than in the context of setting off a chain of hypothetical events, that often don’t come to pass.
 
Last edited:

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
19,962
Fair points. And just to clarify, my post wasn’t directed at you. I agree that not all of these are clear cut. But putting aside some debatable polls that are often cited as a defense of the redskins name, I think using a term whose origins are as a racial slur, or having a clownish, undignified mascot like chief wahoo(that they were correct in discontinuing) should, and I think does, fall in the wheelhouse of a great many people, NA or otherwise, finding offensive. But I will stipulate, that most or many people, rather than anyone, would have been better wording in regards to my moral compass comment. And I say that without rancor or snark. I think my larger point holds: these are complicated topics that are probably best discussed individually , in a vacuum, rather than in the context of setting of a chain of hypothetical events, that often don’t come to pass.
Yep good post.
 

Mueller's Twin Grannies

critical thinker
SoSH Member
Dec 19, 2009
9,061
I nominate the Washington Failsons or even Washington Laughingstocks.

Sure, it may not have a lot of marketability but it's far more accurate than anything else they could come up with.

Heck, if they want to keep the "red" part still in play, they could take a page out of CHB's book and call themselves the Washington Tomato Cans.
 

Leskanic's Thread

lost underscore
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
2,244
Los Angeles
The chart below shows recent trademark application filings. Many were filed by the same attorney in VA on July 6th. ("The Washington Herald" was filed by the Washington Herald, of course, and Radskins, Braves, Potomacs, and War Hogs seem to have been made by filers unrelated to the Washington professional football team.)

[TH] Serial Number[/TH] [TH]Reg. Number[/TH] [TH]Word Mark[/TH] [TH]Check Status[/TH] [TH]Live/Dead[/TH] [TH][/TH]
1 90036691 WASHINGTON MONUMENTS TSDR LIVE
2 90036682 WASHINGTON VETERANS TSDR LIVE
3 90036672 WASHINGTON RENEGADES GRIDIRON FOOTBALL TSDR LIVE
4 90036282 WASHINGTON BRAVES PROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL TEAM TSDR LIVE
5 90036248 WASHINGTON REDTAILS TSDR LIVE
6 90036108 WASHINGTON FREEDOM FIGHTERS (WFF) TSDR LIVE
7 90036103 WASHINGTON FREEDOM FIGHTERS TSDR LIVE
8 90036057 WASHINGTON WAR HOGS TSDR LIVE
9 90035687 WASHINGTON RADSKINS TSDR LIVE
10 90035600 WASHINGTON RED-TAILED HAWKS TSDR LIVE
11 90035054 WASHINGTON POTOMACS TSDR LIVE
12 90023930 THE WASHINGTON HERALD TSDR LIVE
13 90009366 WASHINGTON AMERICANS TSDR LIVE



Man, I love that someone went to the trouble of thinking "Hmm, if the Washington team has to change their name, I should do some trademark speculation and maybe make some money off this!"...and then went with "Washington Braves."

Of course, knowing Dan Snyder...it just might pay out.
 

SuperManny

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2005
702
Washington, DC
Man, I love that someone went to the trouble of thinking "Hmm, if the Washington team has to change their name, I should do some trademark speculation and maybe make some money off this!"...and then went with "Washington Braves."

Of course, knowing Dan Snyder...it just might pay out.
The Radskins cracked me up, that's such a terrible name.