U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s appeals board cancels Redskins trademark

posted at 12:01 pm on June 18, 2014 by Allahpundit

The quickest way to catch you up on the procedural history here is to have you read this post from January, when the USPTO denied a trademark to a company that wanted to call its snack food “Redskins Hog Rind.” The NFL’s ‘Skins have actually had their mark canceled on “disparagement” grounds once before, in 1999, but that decision ended up being overturned in federal court on a procedural technicality. A group of Native Americans decided to have a second go at a suit a few years ago, and now here we are.

They had to show not only that the team’s name is disparaging, but that it was disparaging at the time the trademark was granted. Held: Bye bye, “Redskins.”

r1r2

The team’s intent in using the name doesn’t matter. It’s what a “substantial composite” of the group implicated by the mark perceives. Follow the last link and scroll down to page 81 for the dissent, which argues that the historical evidence is simply too equivocal to find that “Redskins” was disparaging when the mark was first granted. (Arguably true!) The ruling doesn’t mean the team can’t use the name, just that they can’t stop unlicensed manufacturers from using the name on their own merchandise. Soon you’ll be able to sell your very own ‘Skins gear if you like, and Dan Snyder will lose tens or even hundreds of millions of bucks in the process. But not just yet: An appeal will follow, as it did in 1999, which means the trademark will remain in effect for years to come while the litigation plays out. Assuming, of course, Snyder doesn’t drop “Redskins” first.

“Disparagement” is interesting grounds for canceling a mark. After all, in theory, the market should be able to handle the problem. If Snyder changed the team’s name to, say, the “Washington Blackskins,” the economic backlash would be sufficiently swift and stern that you wouldn’t need the USPTO to convince him to change his mind. Empowering the agency to cancel a mark is sort of the intellectual property equivalent of civil rights legislation: It lets the government step in and sanction a business on behalf of people who may not have enough political or economic clout to force the change otherwise. Is that true of Native Americans, though, given the number of Senate Democrats who are now invested in this issue? Is it also true that the term “Redskins” brings Native Americans “into contempt or disrepute”? The weird thing about “Redskins” is that it’s so closely associated with football and the team in the public’s mind, I think, that over time the sports meaning has completely overtaken the racially derogatory meaning. If someone walked up to you today and said “What do you think of the Redskins?”, you’d assume without a second thought that he was asking you about the NFC East, not casually slurring Native Americans. Hard to argue that the word’s “disparaging” in that context. On the other hand, if you let the mark stand for that reason, then theoretically “Washington Blackskins” would and should also stand as long as it’s been in use for a long enough time that the underlying racial meaning has basically melted away. The USPTO wouldn’t go for that, so “Redskins” has to fall. Not because it’s actually disparaging but for reasons of simple consistency.

Exit question: How about “Washington Parasites”? “Washington Cronies”? If we’re going to use disparaging names in connection with the D.C. area, let’s really do it, you know?


Related Posts:

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4

But how is that a deprivation of property? Can the team still use the logo?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I will use small words so your liberal brain can comprehend what I am saying.

This ruling means they no longer OWN their name and logos, meaning that anyone can make stuff using them. The Obama Regime just told the Redskins that their name and logo is NO LONGER THEIR PROPERTY, and thus stole it from them.

Sports teams make a lot of money selling things with their name and logos on them.

Get it? Or will I have to resort to crayon for you?

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Without trademark protection ANYONE can use their logos, name, etc. Meaning the Redskins (and the NFL) just lost exclusive rights to it.

That is deprivation of property.

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:32 PM

But how is that a deprivation of property? Can the team still use the logo?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM

I’m arguing about nothing. It’s not a deprivation of property, but your point is correct.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

From the Headline thread:

Change the name to the Washington Ambassadors and forfeit all road games.

Left Coast Right Mind on June 18, 2014 at 11:10 AM

Left Coast Right Mind on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

But how is that a deprivation of property? Can the team still use the logo?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:37 PM

You’re being obtuse.

Hey, man sorry you have a patent on your invention but others can now use it without paying you. What? You can still use your invention so that’s not an infringement on your property, right?

You’ve sunk a lot of time and effort and money into branding a trademark and now someone else can profit from using it to sell products?

What? You wrote a book? Well you can still print and sell it. But so can anyone else. Not a deprivation of your property?

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

If 30 percent against the name represents “substantial composite” of those Indians against the name, what was the threshold? Over 25 percent? How about 22.456 percent? OR was the threshold in the eye of the Obama Administration?

stop2think on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

This is bad. I expect “womens” groups to start filing complaints against trademarked names containing the word, male, men, etcc.
Black and other “minority” groups will protest White Castle, any name with white in it.
This is political correctness taken to new extremes.

Personally, I find the name, Patiots disparaging as it implies only they are patriots. :-)

lonestar1 on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

During the Obama regime, everything is about politics.

bw222 on June 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM

During the Obama Regime, everything is about Obama.

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

‘Native Americans’.
What BS.
ANYONE born in North, Central, or South America is a ‘native American’.
The American Indians need to quit playing the victim and get over themselves.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

This ruling means they no longer OWN their name and logos, meaning that anyone can make stuff using them. The Obama Regime just told the Redskins that their name and logo is NO LONGER THEIR PROPERTY, and thus stole it from them.

Sports teams make a lot of money selling things with their name and logos on them.

Get it? Or will I have to resort to crayon for you?

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM

I should have waited for your reply.

The Obama administration stole their property. Ok then.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

I’m offended by the phone book. The “white pages” (Caucasians), the “yellow pages” (Chinese) and the “blue pages” (OK, you got me on that one, wait a minute….must refer to Eskimos).

bandutski on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

Our intellectual property rights are completely messed out. Look at Disney and how they keep their characters out of the public domain.

I just thought it was ironic that a team using a native american as a mascot and calling themselves the “Redskins” making an argument on intellectual property rights.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:39 PM

Oh, so you do understand how this is stealing property and you’re just trolling.

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

How about the Washington Foreskins?

Their logo could be the US Capitol with a penis bursting out of the dome.

BacaDog on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

‘Native Americans’.
What BS.
ANYONE born in North, Central, or South America is a ‘native American’.
The American Indians need to quit playing the victim and get over themselves.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

I am a Native American. I was born in Ashland, Kentucky and can prove both where and when it happened (unlike Obama). The term “native American” not applying to EVERYONE born in America offends me.

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Message boards are often the birthplace of real efforts to make change. Efforts need to start somewhere, or did you think they spontaneously appear?

blink on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

I agree. They can be birthplaces. Which is why I asked if he was going to take the next logical step and actually do something about it. The idea is there. The method to affect that change is there too. The blueprint is above. So, is anyone actually going to do something, or is it just hot air?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

We’re on the same page then.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

Ok, first try didn’t make it through the filter……

How about naming them the Washington f o r e s k i n s?

Their logo could be the US Capitol with a big angry p e n 1 s bursting through the dome.

BacaDog on June 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

If 30 percent against the name represents “substantial composite” of those Indians against the name, what was the threshold? Over 25 percent? How about 22.456 percent? OR was the threshold in the eye of the Obama Administration?

stop2think on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I’m going with the latter. Call me crazy but I have a feeling the number could have been anything and it would have been “substantial” in this case. The decision is pure nonsense.

alchemist19 on June 18, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Trolling along HA is.

Bmore on June 18, 2014 at 12:45 PM

Exit question: How about “Washington Parasites”? “Washington Cronies”? If we’re going to use disparaging names in connection with the D.C. area, let’s really do it, you know?

Here are some suggestions:

“Washington Malingerers”

“Washington Reprobates”

“Washington Panderers”

“Washington Recriminators”

s1im on June 18, 2014 at 12:46 PM

Keep it Redskins and make it a potato head. It would really piss off people like Reid.

lonestar1 on June 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

What if they keep the name and change the logo to a potato?

ROCnPhilly on June 18, 2014 at 12:23 PM

OMG. I can’t stop laughing.

Firefly_76 on June 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Oh, so you do understand how this is stealing property and you’re just trolling.

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Are you serious, or are you just trying to get a reaction? You consider this to be stealing as well?

When something goes into the public domain, is that stealing as well?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

The American Indians need to quit playing the victim and get over themselves.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

The vast majority of them aren’t.

ladyingray on June 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM

Maybe, maybe not. Why do you care?

blink on June 18, 2014 at 12:44 PM

I don’t care. And neither does the poster. And that’s why we’re just typing away on message boards.

Why do you care if I care? (and we can go on and on and on like this)

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:48 PM

When are they going to cancel the NAACP trademark, because “colored people” is considered a derogatory term now?

JeffinSac on June 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM

Ed, I’m offended by libtard’s handle!

freedomfirst on June 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

Actually, I’m not… I’d like to be “lib free” also!

Nothing funnier than a liberal choosing a handle that makes a mockery of everything they post! Next “lib free” will be claiming to be some high-falutin “perfessor” or something! (oops)

Liberals are like that, they lie to try and cover up their inadequacies, which is why they make perfect targets for Viagra ads…

dominigan on June 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Ed, I’m offended by libtard’s handle!

freedomfirst on June 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

I’m not… I’d like to be “lib free” also!

dominigan on June 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Keep it Redskins and make it a potato head. It would really piss off people like Reid.

lonestar1 on June 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Or perhaps a peanut head?

As long as it doesn’t look too much like Mr. Peanut so they don’t have a lawsuit from Planter’s Peanut company.

s1im on June 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Hitler and Mussolini are smiling. Stalin and Mao are laughing.

Founding Fathers are not.

jukin3 on June 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

You know, I think more people find the names ‘liberal’ and ‘Democrat’ to be disparaging than ‘Redskins’.

Let’s sue.

Midas on June 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

When are they going to cancel the NAACP trademark, because “colored people” is considered a derogatory term now?

JeffinSac on June 18, 2014 at 12:49 PM

They can’t just cancel it. Someone has to object. I don’t think anyone has ever objected to the name.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

This is nothing be petty retribution. How is allowing anyone to use the trademark going to appease the handful of indians who might be offended by it? Answer: it won’t. This is Obama using the power of the federal government to once again abuse citizens.

cajunpatriot on June 18, 2014 at 12:52 PM

Are you serious, or are you just trying to get a reaction? You consider this to be stealing as well?

When something goes into the public domain, is that stealing as well?

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:47 PM

Are you serious? Trademarks should enter the public domain after a certain amount of time?

I think that our intellectual property rights are messed up and that many works are improperly held out of the public domain for way too long but the trademark of a team’s name and logo etc does not fit into this category.

But you do in fact know why a trademark is considered property and you are just trolling.

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

“What do you think of the Redskins?”

One of my favorite potatoes.

Axeman on June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

What Snyder should do, is change the team name to “Washington Constitutions,” with the helmet logo being a variant on the “We the People” script.

THAT would send every single liberal in America right over the edge, and there’s no way they could protest it without looking anti-American.

Archangel Nation on June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

This all stems from the fact that our distant ancestors stole the land from the Indians so we’re supposed to feel guilty. First, as I tell many of my liberal friends, nothing is stopping you from giving it back. Find some Native Americans, apologize and then give them you’re house. If you don’t want to do that, then SHUT UP. Second, Indians were the ones who introduced us to smoking tobacco (before that we just used it as snuff). Since millions of Americans have died from lung cancer, I think that makes us even.

bandutski on June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

They can’t just cancel it. Someone has to object. I don’t think anyone has ever objected to the name.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

No one will object until someone wants to copy-write and trademark the NAAWP.

cajunpatriot on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

If I remove property from your house and toss it into a public square, is that stealing? What if you don’t necessarily own the property, but the property has been leased to you in exchange for other consideration you are providing?

Again, it’s called intellectual property for a reason.

blink on June 18, 2014 at 12:51 PM

When items become public domain, is that stealing?

Yes, if you remove property from my house, that’s stealing.

If you start singing a song that I have sung to you, is that stealing?

What you are defining is incredibly simplistic. Also, intellectual property rights are not natural rights.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Rush just laid it out…It’s the feds simply confiscating personal property…on a whim.
No diff if tomorrow they take “Hot Air” or “Allapundit” just cuz

winston on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

So the Federal Government can deprive people of property rights based on who is offended?

So the tyranny of a 30% minority gets to rule over 70%?

My suggestion from the headlines thread: A state should set up a trademark agency to rival the Feds. Since the other 49 states have to recognize “full faith and credit” in the act of that state (just like they have to recognize the gay marriages) the feds then lose their exclusive authority.

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:13 PM

Umm…states can’t. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8. Trademarks, patents, and copyrights are for the federal government.

Also, states can refuse to give “full faith and credit.” They have to show it would be repugnant to some sort of important policy interest.

However, there are other remedies at the state level, such as unfair competition claims. Also, the PTO registration isn’t as important as this makes it out to be. Registration is a way of saying that everyone should be on notice that the TM is yours and that you have rights to it. The Redskins would still be able to sue people in state court if they use the Redskin logo. They just won’t be able to use the registration to say others had notice. Then again, they’re an NFL team. How could anyone NOT have notice that the TM was theirs?

irishgladiator63 on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

So now a public opinion poll determines law? Private property can be destroyed on the basis of perceived opinions?

Coulter would say, the mob was won.

You only have to watch Kimmell’s man-on-the-street polls to see how accurate polls are.

PattyJ on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

We need to look at names of government agencies too.

For instance the ‘Bureau of Indian Affairs’.

Isn’t that so totally offensive? I mean, are Indians so maritally unfaithful that they need a whole agency of the Federal Government to help keep track of who is cheating on whom and help settle out the aftermath? I don’t think so.

s1im on June 18, 2014 at 12:55 PM

I’m of 100% Nordic descent. The Minnesota Vikings are offensive to me only when they play poorly, not because of their name.

Hat Trick on June 18, 2014 at 12:33 PM

That’s a recipe for living in a lifelong rage.

Mr. D on June 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Are you serious? Trademarks should enter the public domain after a certain amount of time?

I think that our intellectual property rights are messed up and that many works are improperly held out of the public domain for way too long but the trademark of a team’s name and logo etc does not fit into this category.

But you do in fact know why a trademark is considered property and you are just trolling.

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 12:53 PM

Trademarks expire. You seem to be implying that they don’t.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM

So “approximately 30%” of something dictates the law?

A pen and a phone.

formwiz on June 18, 2014 at 1:00 PM

PS This is what Shinseki did to the Rangers.

(hey, maybe this is the way to get rid of Barry…)

formwiz on June 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM

At first they came for the Redskins…

Defenestratus on June 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM

If the Redskins were perennial contenders for the NFL championship, we wouldn’t be having any discussions over the name of the team.

BobMbx on June 18, 2014 at 1:02 PM

Snyder should sell, trade, or release, all on-field personnel without any Native-American heritage, and replace them with personnel who do.
Then, he’ll have a ‘truth in advertising’ defense.
I can see the TV Promos now:
“Hi, I’m quarterback Jim Eagle Feather, and I’m a Washington Redskin!”

Another Drew on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM

When items become public domain, is that stealing?

Yes, if you remove property from my house, that’s stealing.

If you start singing a song that I have sung to you, is that stealing?

What you are defining is incredibly simplistic. Also, intellectual property rights are not natural rights.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

But they are constitutional rights.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

Also, things that fall into the public domain do so after the death of the person that created them. The term is 70 years after their death, though sometimes that gets extended, like with Mickey Mouse.

Also, your song example WOULD be stealing according to IP law. The original creator of the song would have the copyright, regardless of whether or not they registered it with the Copyright Office. There would be all kinds of arguments about whether you changed it enough to make it new and other stuff. But basically, you would be stealing it.

irishgladiator63 on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM

dominigan on June 18, 2014 at 12:50 PM

Agree.
You changed my perception!

freedomfirst on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM

I only work tangentially with trademarks, but I thought even in the absence of registration the Redskins would own common law rights to the trademark. Thus they could continue to enforce their common law rights even in the absence of registration. Registration provides certain benefits in defending the mark, but is not required.

Over50 on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM

Also, intellectual property rights are not natural rights.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Bullcrap.

As for the discussion of “public domain”:
1) *Copyrights* should expire after a reasonable time. Period. (And “the life of the corporation” is not “reasonable”.)
2) *Trademarks* should not expire for the life of the corporation or the product.
3) *Patents* do expire and should. Software should be a patent, not a copyright. (It’s a machine, not an artistic expression.)

GWB on June 18, 2014 at 1:04 PM

The term “native American” not applying to EVERYONE born in America offends me.

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

.
Likewise, I am of the Eastern Contingent of Native Americans, born on the coastal fishing and hunting and agricultural grounds of Coastal Virginia, southward and westward of the Chesapeake Bay. I am native American and I support legacy terms of respect, like Redskins, for American Indian (AmerInd) populations.

ExpressoBold on June 18, 2014 at 1:05 PM

Trademarks expire. You seem to be implying that they don’t.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:58 PM

Uh, they last indefinitely if they are in current use and are maintained and re-registered with an affidavit of being in use.

See, you are trolling. You know very well that a company is supposed to be allowed to maintain a trademark if it’s in use. But you want to deflect and play stupid.

Unless you’re seriously suggesting that trademarks from the Democrat party should have long ago expired and some crank in his basement can start producing “official” works from the “Democrat” party advocating for the return of slavery and the execution of homosexuals.

gwelf on June 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

Washington Rifles

Exninja on June 18, 2014 at 1:07 PM

But they are constitutional rights.
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.

Also, things that fall into the public domain do so after the death of the person that created them. The term is 70 years after their death, though sometimes that gets extended, like with Mickey Mouse.

Also, your song example WOULD be stealing according to IP law. The original creator of the song would have the copyright, regardless of whether or not they registered it with the Copyright Office. There would be all kinds of arguments about whether you changed it enough to make it new and other stuff. But basically, you would be stealing it.

irishgladiator63 on June 18, 2014 at 1:03 PM

My point about it not being a natural right is that, because of that, it’s relatively arbitrary.

Yes, I agree that that would be stealing according to intellectual property laws. I was curious if the poster considered that to be stealing.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 1:11 PM

Change the name to the “Skins and put a laughing rabbi on the helmet.

Knott Buyinit on June 18, 2014 at 1:12 PM

If I were Dan Snyder id change it to the “Washington Tea Party” with appropriate logo. Let the liberal know better Washington. Football fans suck on that.

NYCMike on June 18, 2014 at 1:12 PM

The American Indians need to quit playing the victim and get over themselves.

annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 12:41 PM

And so do the Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Wimmenses, Little People, Muslims…

So now what?

NOMOBO on June 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM

I’m arguing about nothing. It’s not a deprivation of property, but your point is correct.
segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:40 PM

I’ll give it a go. Companies sell merchandise to earn money. That money earned is their property. To make their product unique to attract more customers is that they come up with a design, a logo, or an image which in turn they patent so no one else can make money on it, so it is their property. Now to make it simple for you low information voter types, if you have a lemonade stand, imagine if a mean old republican confiscated your lemons and said you can’t sell lemonade as lemons are too sour

Brock Robamney on June 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM

And so do the Blacks, Hispanics, Gays, Wimmenses, Little People, Muslims…

So now what?

NOMOBO on June 18, 2014 at 1:15 PM

You forgot Whites, straights, men, tall people, and Jews…

ladyingray on June 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

The team’s intent in using the name doesn’t matter. It’s what a “substantial composite” of the group implicated by the mark perceives.

Also known as a “heckler’s veto”, which is blatantly unconstitutional on first amendment grounds.

Ignore for the moment that the “group implicated” isn’t even native americans, but football players and their fans, who refer to themselves as Redskins without implying any kind of disparagement.

Maybe I should go start a petition to demonstrate a “substantial composite” of young Irish heritage children find the term “tater-tots” offensive.

CapnObvious on June 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

We should choose a name that properly honors a great Native American, his family, and his people. Red Cloud (a/k/a Chief Red Cloud), per Wikipedia, “was a very strong war leader and a chief of the Oglala Lakota. He led as a chief from 1868 to 1909. One of the most capable Native American opponents the United States Army faced, he led a successful campaign in 1866–1868 known as Red Cloud’s War over control of the Powder River Country in northeastern Wyoming and southern Montana.”

To honor him, his family, and his people we should rename the team “Red’s Kin.”

Nomennovum on June 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Washington Control Freaks.

Football names are a source of honor, pansy lefties.

John the Libertarian on June 18, 2014 at 1:24 PM

Exit question: How about “Washington Parasites”? “Washington Cronies”? If we’re going to use disparaging names in connection with the D.C. area, let’s really do it, you know?

The Washington Redskins
The Washington Redistributionists

ITguy on June 18, 2014 at 1:25 PM

blink on June 18, 2014 at 1:11 PM

If the government takes 60% of your income in taxes, is that stealing?

If the EPA takes your land by declaring it a wetland, is that stealing?

If the NSA takes your liberty by rifling through your private communications, is that stealing?

The Government has so ingrained theft into our society that people don’t really pay attention to things as mundane as trademarks and copyrights.

NOMOBO on June 18, 2014 at 1:26 PM

If you start singing a song that I have sung to you, is that stealing?

What you are defining is incredibly simplistic. Also, intellectual property rights are not natural rights.

segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:54 PM

Ask Amy Bowen, or the judge that allowed her lawsuit to proceed.

http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/radio/5812379/carrie-underwood-brad-paisley-judge-allows-lawsuit-claiming-they

As to the topic at hand- ridiculous. I expect this will be overturned, but could be wrong. Guess we’ll see.

cs89 on June 18, 2014 at 1:26 PM

Just the latest example that we are under the boot of a fascist government…

…a tyranny of the minority.

Athos on June 18, 2014 at 1:27 PM

which in turn they patent trademark so no one else can make money on it

Brock Robamney on June 18, 2014 at 1:17 PM

minor fix

To honor him, his family, and his people we should rename the team “Red’s Kin.”

Nomennovum on June 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Very subversive approach! I like it!

GWB on June 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

Can we just call them the Washington Skins? Or will that offend Catholics for promoting condom use?

An appeal will follow, as it did in 1999, which means the trademark will remain in effect for years to come while the litigation plays out. Assuming, of course, Snyder doesn’t drop “Redskins” first.

Snyder won’t drop the name. He’s tough. This will go to the Supreme Court if necessary.

Joseph K on June 18, 2014 at 1:30 PM

Next on the chopping block… the Green Bay Packers. Gays will take offense.

KansasNavyDad on June 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

You forgot Whites, straights, men, tall people, and Jews…

ladyingray on June 18, 2014 at 1:18 PM

No, I didn’t. Whites, straights, men, tall people, Jews, Christians and the like are not permitted by society nor the government to be victims. That is unless they are liberal progressive whiners.

NOMOBO on June 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

Let me see if I have this correct, the Washington Redskins organization no longer have sole rights for the use of the name “Redskins” because the patent office has deemed it offensive. However now anyone can manufacture and sell merchandise with the Washington Redskins name and logo. Doesn’t that actually allow more widespread use of this so called racial slur (Redskins) for profit?

susandiane311 on June 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

…Which is why I asked if he was going to take the next logical step and actually do something about it. The idea is there. The method to affect that change is there too. The blueprint is above. So, is anyone actually going to do something, or is it just hot air? segasagez on June 18, 2014 at 12:43 PM

Anyone could do it, but nobody does most things that get done. In fact, nobody does everything.

I guess you don’t think that you qualify as anyone.

Akzed on June 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM

This is silly and will be reversed on appeal.

Captain Kirock on June 18, 2014 at 1:38 PM

How about changing the name to:

Washington Junkies…

Logo could be a needle filled with ‘dollars’ going into a congressman’s arm.

CrazyFool on June 18, 2014 at 1:39 PM

The Hells Angels patch is trademarked, and they don’t let no redskins nor otherwise non-European folks join their motorcycle riding club.

Akzed on June 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM

To honor him, his family, and his people we should rename the team “Red’s Kin.”

Nomennovum on June 18, 2014 at 1:20 PM

Very subversive approach! I like it!

GWB on June 18, 2014 at 1:28 PM

How could the Trademark Board — or anyone else — find this name objectionable? On what legal basis could they object? If you are a PC fanatic, you will love it, because Red was anti-white man and anti-US. If you are American Indian, you will love it because it expressly celebrates an Indian hero. And, if you like the original name, there’s not much to dislike about dropping one lousy S and chuckling at the name “change.”

The team’s owner, Dan Snyder, can make a mint on this too. He should continue to appeal the ruling, but announce the name change effective as of next season’s first game. This way, the fans and memorabilia collectors will hoard the soon-to-be-discontinued Redskin merchandise. If he wins the appeal, he could opt to keep the old name and pocket his windfall. Or he could change the name to Red’s Kin … and pocket the windfall. He and the people who love the old name will laugh out loud as they chant “Red’s Kin! Go Red’s Kin!”

Subversive indeed.

Nomennovum on June 18, 2014 at 1:43 PM

The gays will soon protest the Packers.

John the Libertarian on June 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

Im offended by the term “gay marriage”.

monalisa on June 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Chicago Blackhawks, Sminoles etc. If you do it to one you have to do it to all. I am native American and Viking, I have no problem with the names, none of it is derogatory.

Sven on June 18, 2014 at 1:45 PM

Next on the chopping block… the Green Bay Packers. Gays will take offense.

KansasNavyDad on June 18, 2014 at 1:37 PM

The gays will soon protest the Packers.

John the Libertarian on June 18, 2014 at 1:44 PM

-_- Go Pack!!!

Bmore on June 18, 2014 at 1:47 PM

Goodness gracious that is one stoned stupid ass troll.

Bmore on June 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM

As a man of Irish Descent and former catholic, I’m offended by the name Fighting Irish. I’m ok with condom use so Washington Skins is ok with me. In light of recent court decisions, why don’t we ban the name Boy Scouts? Couldn’t we make it the LGBT scouts?

Brock Robamney on June 18, 2014 at 1:52 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4