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

Just change the name to Washington Gays and let the mascot be a marriage license.

Liberals will be happy and that is all that is important here, apparently.

Moesart on June 18, 2014 at 1:55 PM

More to come in the new MEXIMERICA.

For example:

“Cowboys”—murdering, rampaging, drunken, Native people killers.

“Texas”—-offensive, robbed the sovereign nation of Mexico of this great natural resource. It should be called “TEJAS”.

“Work”—-purely a Protestant word, should be replaced with the word “Meh”. As in “I need to do X but, Meh”.

“America”—European / bad.

“Columbus”—European / more badder.

“Pilgrim”—see above.

“Mayflower”—another ship used by the Invaders of this pristine land.


You see where this is headed right compadre?

And my own name should be Papi. I even have my own song now, sung by the great Latina J-LO.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIDmvbJ07XA

PappyD61 on June 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM

Does this make the patent office “Indian givers.”

byepartisan on June 18, 2014 at 1:59 PM

The NFL and every sports franchise in America had better fight this confiscation of property. If the government can take away the property rights of the Redskins, they can do it to any team for any reason. Heck, they can do it it to any business. Just as they have ruled that a baker MUST make wedding cakes for SSM couples. People in this country had better wake the H up!

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 2:00 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

How about the Washington Chemical Skin Peal. You remove all color from any human likeness. You can still call them the skins. \SARC

mechkiller_k on June 18, 2014 at 2:02 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

The people we used to call “Indians” should more properly be referred to as “Siberian immigrants”, or you may prefer “Siberian-Americans”.

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2014 at 2:05 PM

If they can do this to the Washington Redskins, why not Chick-Fil-A? Paula Deen? Phil Robertson?

slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2014 at 2:07 PM

I say they go full Community and call them the Washington Humans.

sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 2:08 PM

Another name suggestion: The Washington Theirskinreallyisntredyouknowitsjustaslightlydarkershadethanourswereallyallthesameinsidedontberacists.

Nomennovum on June 18, 2014 at 2:08 PM

The NFL and every sports franchise in America had better fight this confiscation of property. If the government can take away the property rights of the Redskins, they can do it to any team for any reason. Heck, they can do it it to any business. Just as they have ruled that a baker MUST make wedding cakes for SSM couples. People in this country had better wake the H up!

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 2:00 PM

Private Property?……HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.

Have you forgotten…..”you didn’t build that”.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng

PappyD61 on June 18, 2014 at 2:10 PM

And isn’t that ad for “Lower my bills.com” on the right side here a bit racist?

Changing the Obama look-alike to drain the color out of him and make him white?

Whoa……..very racist.

PappyD61 on June 18, 2014 at 2:11 PM

The out-of-control tyrants in the d-cRAT socialist dictatorship in Washington are demanding that the Washington Redskins change their name in accordance with their political extremism. Arizona can and should help in this effort with an incentive package to induce the Washington Redskins to change their name (and venue) to the Phoenix Redskins !!!!

To encourage this change, please write to State Sen. Al Melvin at amelvin@azleg.gov Sen. Melvin is a true conservative (rare in AZ RINOland) and was a key mover in getting GOP organizations to censure the despicable traitor McRINO.

MicahStone on June 18, 2014 at 2:13 PM

Considering the taxes, tyranny, and treachery coming out of DC, Washington’s team should be called the RED COATS.

Willys on June 18, 2014 at 2:24 PM

I could go with “Skins” and maybe a shirtless squaw Native American female.

Appalacher on June 18, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Maybe the Washington Foreskins ?

Appalacher on June 18, 2014 at 2:33 PM

The way I read this is that even the groups that have approval from the corresponding tribe can essentially lose their trademark.

airupthere on June 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM

So when are they going after Red Man chewing tobacco?

CurtZHP on June 18, 2014 at 2:35 PM

Yeap, the Foreskins. And replace the Indian mascot with a likeness of Barack Obama ?

Appalacher on June 18, 2014 at 2:35 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

I sooooo wish they would do this! It would be a HUUUUUUGE selling new logo item for the Redskins, (like legacy uniforms sell big) even if they just dressed up for one game with the Potato helmet logos, flags, mascot and everything. They’d make tens of millions on it. It’d be such a FU to Obama and his cabal it would make history.

Harbingeing on June 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM

I could go with “Skins” and maybe a shirtless squaw Native American female.

Appalacher on June 18, 2014 at 2:29 PM

Wearing authentically styled native american loincloths too? That entice me into watching NFL games again.

hawkeye54 on June 18, 2014 at 2:36 PM

Washington Autocrats.

Cindy Munford on June 18, 2014 at 2:37 PM

Change it to the Washington Blacks and make their logo an Obama Hagiography that didn’t have an ownership claim.

If they sue, ask them why the suit also isn’t against the Cleveland Browns.

BKennedy on June 18, 2014 at 2:38 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?

How about “Washington Reds” with a hammer and sickle logo to better reflect the culture in Washington?

Seriously, government is too damn big if it can do this. As you say, the market is perfectly capable of punishing teams (and businesses) for doing legitimately offensive things.

Note I use the word “legitimately,” which excludes namby-pamby girly-boy liberals seeking to be offended to validate their own existences.

DRayRaven on June 18, 2014 at 2:46 PM

Change the name to the “Washington Football Team” and all team property should be altered accordingly. No unique identifying logos or colors at all.

crazywater on June 18, 2014 at 2:47 PM

The US Patent Office reports to the Commerce Secretary. The commerce Secretary reports to Obama.

President Pantywaist.

kingsjester on June 18, 2014 at 2:49 PM

Seriously, government is too damn big if it can do this. As you say, the market is perfectly capable of punishing teams (and businesses) for doing legitimately offensive things.

See this type of logic needs to end. I think it’s ridiculous to get offended by a sports team name, especially like mentioned above, one that’s been in place so that no one actually thinks of actual Indians when they hear that name. But the trademark only exists because of the federal government. So trademarks are very much under their jurisdiction. This is just the new “Get the government out of my Medicare!” nonsense that makes it easier for people to mock conservatives. Complain about the liberal whining about a name, fine. Question how many people were actually offended other than that the usual being offended on someone else’s behalf, great. Suggest names to offend the people who brought this one, awesome. But please no more of this “Why is the federal patent office getting involved in federal trademark decisions!” silliness.

sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM

Washington Squirrels
or
Washington Wampum
or
Washington Proud, indigenous, auburn colored people with cool war paint and neato feathered headdresses.

StubbornGreenBurros on June 18, 2014 at 2:59 PM

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?

In this case, it’s being done purely for the benefit of people who have political clout.

And no, they are not Native Americans. Try “Democratic politicians” assuming the right to be offended by proxy.

There Goes the Neighborhood on June 18, 2014 at 3:15 PM

Oh, and… SQUIRREL.

Midas on June 18, 2014 at 3:17 PM

The biggest FU to Obama and all of Washington would be to move the team to Oklahoma. I’m sure Oklahoma, “land of the red people” would welcome them and they love football. The name is only an issue because the team is from Washington DC.

monalisa on June 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM

Move the team out of Washington. Find another city. Change the name. Change the uniforms.

Lose on your own terms – not those of the Marxists.

HondaV65 on June 18, 2014 at 3:22 PM

Call them the Washington Politicians… no one will ever cheer for them again.

Also, doesn’t this set up something of a precedent that if someone finds any trademark disparaging, they can just yank it from the company? I mean what exactly is the legal definition of disparaging? What if I don’t like someone using the name “Cowboys” or “Buccaneers”? Will the government yank those trademarks as well?

And does this mean ANYONE can use this name and that logo now with no threat of legal issue?

UnderstandingisPower on June 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

PLEASE stop with the stupid Washington ____________ names. If anything, the Redskins need to drop Washington. They play in Maryland and practice in Virginia.

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 3:27 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

Stop pretending you think a certain way, just to defend your indefensible position.

Technically, it’s not a deprivation of property. However, legally and practically (i.e., not as in “almost,” but as in, “in practice”), it is in fact a deprivation of property.

brentspolemics on June 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM

The Washington Thinskins.

John Gillis on June 18, 2014 at 3:28 PM

Just cause Harry Reid’s head to implode and change the name of the team to The Koch Brothers

PJ Emeritus on June 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM

monalisa on June 18, 2014 at 3:19 PM

I don’t live in Oklahoma, but I think that is second best idea mentioned here.

The best idea is for the owner to fight this stupidity. The world is circling the drain, and DC is worried about the name and logo of an NFL team. Idiots.

jazzuscounty on June 18, 2014 at 3:29 PM

Washington High-Cheekboned Senators.

F X Muldoon on June 18, 2014 at 3:30 PM

Cracker -often offensive, another term for poor white.

I want Nabisco and Keebler to change the name of Ritz and Town House cr–kers! Every day millions of poor white people are being offended and they are too stupid to know it.

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 3:32 PM

I find anything with the word “Rainbow” in it disparaging, offensive, and clearly an attempt to hold all straight, white males in contempt and disrepute.

Harbingeing on June 18, 2014 at 12:08 PM

While we’re at it, can we revoke the patent for Axe men’s products? That sounds a lot like the way racists think all black people say the work “ask,” and I really don’t care that the brand is probably named after a wood-chopping instrument.

This reminds me of a true story I learned recently. Apparently, PETA once tried to get Fishkill, NY, to change its name. Being vegetarian and all animal-loving and stuff, they found the town’s name offensive. Never mind that those bringing the complaint were ignorant of Fishkill’s name’s origins in the state’s Dutch heritage. The word “kill,” in Dutch, means “a stream.”

From Wikipedia:

In 1996, the animal rights group PETA suggested the town (and, presumably, the village as well) change its name to something less suggestive of violence toward fish.[7] The town declined this change because the name is not meant to suggest violence but instead comes from the Dutch who originally settled the land in which “kill” means “creek.” Various other communities also contain the word “Kill” with various prefixes, and a creek in the Catskills called Beaver Kill is a tributary of the Delaware River. Both “Catskill” and “Beaver Kill” could be considered to promote animal violence when their names are improperly understood. This led then-mayor George Carter to joke that if Fishkill is renamed, the Catskills should also be renamed, presumably to the Catsave Mountains.

But, hey, PETA kept at it anyway. It was optics of it all, dontcha know. Besides, maybe PETA should have prevailed. After all, though the Millennials don’t know much about history, they know all about triggers. And they’re sensitive to them, darn it. Fishkill is a trigger. No pun intended. Really.

brentspolemics on June 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Just drop the “Washington”. I know myself and millions of Americans find THAT part offensive. :)

TKindred on June 18, 2014 at 3:39 PM

Washington Dirt Worshipers

You f’in hoople-heads

3.14159 on June 18, 2014 at 3:44 PM

UnderstandingisPower on June 18, 2014 at 3:23 PM

Disparaging names are not allowed to be trademarked under the Lanham law of 1947. This is not the first time a company has lost it’s trademark under this law. According to wikipeidia the rules are:

The PTO (patent and trademark office) uses a two-step test to determine whether a mark is disparaging to a group of people
Would the mark be understood, in its context, as referring to an identifiable group of people?
May that reference be perceived as disparaging to a substantial composite of that group?

Whether a mark involves an identifiable group involves consideration of:
The dictionary definition of the term;
The relationship of the term and other elements of the mark;
The type of product upon which the mark appears; and
How the mark will appear in the marketplace.

Registration of terms that are historically considered disparaging has been allowed in some circumstances. Self-disparaging trademarks have been allowed where the applicant has shown that the mark as-used is not considered by the relevant group to be disparaging.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disparagement

Right now it’s under appeal, so I’m assuming you can’t go creating/selling your own Redskins merchandise just yet. Also it’s important to note that the NFL shield is still trademarked, so it still wouldn’t be that authentic looking.

sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 3:47 PM

Have them taken over by Cox Enterprises and call them the Washington Red Cox.

Perhaps the best solution is to change the first name of the team instead of the last:

Los Angeles Red Skins
Omaha Red Skins
Portland Redskins

MaiDee on June 18, 2014 at 3:48 PM

We are all overlooking the obvious, Dan Snyder must not have donated to Obama or the DNC.

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM

How about potatoes redskins or onion red skins, or…beet redskins? Then you’d get the vegans on your side.

Don L on June 18, 2014 at 3:56 PM

“Washington Traitors”, will do just fine. With a Benedict Arnold likeness as the logo. Satisfied, a**wipe pc crew?

woodhull on June 18, 2014 at 3:58 PM

I would think a “significant composite” of Irish-Americans should be feeling disparaged by the violent stereotype perpetuated by the Notre Dame “Fighting Irish”.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2014 at 3:59 PM

Taxes now take 40% or more of your life.

Soon it will take more than 70% of your life in taxes to pay for the waste of the VA, EPA, pork and the intrest on the debt, then next will be 99% when the rest of the world hates U.S. as much as Obama does now and they want 10% on the borrowing.

The 1% left is a burial policy cost….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 3:59 PM

I don’t get how the government can just step in and change a name.

What in the world gives it the right to do that?

Do we have any actual rights now? Or is everything up to the whims of the ruling elite?

Is every word to be weighed now for possible implications that may occur to someone to be offended about?

Good grief. Why are people ashamed of their race? Referring to race doesn’t have to be a shameful thing. If you are proud why would you feel shame?

IT’s like they really believe that being white is something to be proud of and being anything else is shameful somehow! It’s not true people! Don’t be ashamed of who you are!

That said, I don’t like the name.

If the owners decided to change it… that’d be a reason to cheer for me.

But I don’t like the government stepping in and making moral decisions. That is not what they should be doing.

petunia on June 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

How about the Washington Red Commies, fits the town much better….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:01 PM

Ya, that work,, team work,,, the commie way to win the NFL…

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:02 PM

Hammer and Scycle on the helmets.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 PM

In my opinion, anyone who doesn’t think the order to cancel the skins trademark came straight from the West Wing must be wearing an Obama gimp suit.

Sacramento on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 PM

I would think a “significant composite” of Irish-Americans should be feeling disparaged by the violent stereotype perpetuated by the Notre Dame “Fighting Irish”.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2014 at 3:59 PM

White people don’t tend to get offended when you name stuff after them, even when you’re trying to offend.

The plan to insult whites in the same way the minority students perceived Native Americans being insulted backfired on the group when the team’s popularity skyrocketed…The team sold enough shirts that they were eventually able to endow a sizeable scholarship fund for Native American students at Northern Colorado. In 2003, the team donated $100,000 to the University of Northern Colorado’s UNC Foundation, which included $79,000 designated for the “Fightin’ Whites Minority Scholarship”.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fighting_Whites

sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Every one in the U.S.A. pays taxes to pay for the head trama.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:03 PM

Ms Clinton wears a short skirt and shows her ass on the side line to cheer on the commie supporters.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Go Red Commies, we are all your backers and vote in order for you.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:05 PM

The field will be in meters to make it easy to run for a touchdown.

just 100 meters….

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:06 PM

petunia on June 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

They’re not requiring changing the team name, they’re removing the trademark protection of the name.

sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM

If this stands, they can go after the Braves, the Indians, the Vikings, and the Fighting Irish. Every one of those teams should stand behind the Redskins, now, with money.
njcommuter on June 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM

What are we now to do about the state’s name of Oklahoma?

It’s Choctaw for “red people.”

anuts on June 18, 2014 at 4:10 PM

All this means is that everyone can use the Washington Redskins logo. It protects no one from being offended. Just make sure that you buy what you want to buy from the real Washington Redskins and is not made in China not licensed by the real Washington Redskins.

SC.Charlie on June 18, 2014 at 4:11 PM

I don’t get how the government can just step in and change a name.
What in the world gives it the right to do that?

A lawless dictatorship can do whatever it wants.

Do we have any actual rights now? Or is everything up to the whims of the ruling elite?

No.
Yes.

Is every word to be weighed now for possible implications that may occur to someone to be offended about?

Yes.

Good grief. Why are people ashamed of their race? Referring to race doesn’t have to be a shameful thing. If you are proud why would you feel shame?

Obviously you’re a racist. (no biggy – we ALL are now)

IT’s like they really believe that being white is something to be proud of and being anything else is shameful somehow! It’s not true people! Don’t be ashamed of who you are!

No – they think being white is shameful and everyone else gets a pass because of their race (or the race they claim to be) for anything they do.

That said, I don’t like the name.

If the owners decided to change it… that’d be a reason to cheer for me.

So – you agree with the governemnt and the lefties.

But I don’t like the government stepping in and making moral decisions. That is not what they should be doing.

petunia on June 18, 2014 at 4:00 PM

But you at least understand that this is really not right.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2014 at 4:11 PM

Ms Clinton wears a short skirt and shows her ass on the side line to cheer on the commie supporters.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on June 18, 2014 at 4:04 PM

Now THAT is offensive!!!!

Need brain bleach!!!!

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM

They’re not requiring changing the team name, they’re removing the trademark protection of the name. – sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Precisely, my guess is that only the NFL can make them change the name of the team.

SC.Charlie on June 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM

In keeping with the meme, how about changing the name to The Washington Victims?

ghostwalker1 on June 18, 2014 at 4:16 PM

Precisely, my guess is that only the NFL can make them change the name of the team.

SC.Charlie on June 18, 2014 at 4:13 PM

And with as PC and wimpy as the NFL is getting, and after what the NBA did to Sterling, it’s only a matter of time.

dentarthurdent on June 18, 2014 at 4:17 PM

Imperial City Obamabots

The Hillary Squaws.

The Alinsky Avengers.

The Sharpton Sharpies.

The Soros Stooges.

The Washington Running Mouths.

VorDaj on June 18, 2014 at 4:32 PM

Ah yes the Progressives (Communists) at work……

Time to take back the reins of government and purge it of all communists….

It may be an impossible task but one that needs to be started.

redguy on June 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM

This has gone way beyond a simple lawsuit by a few disaffected Native Americans. They’ve received the “Cindy Sheehan treatment” and they are being willingly used by Democrats to batter a rich Republican. (Did I mention that he is white?)

“Redskins” = racist = Democrat euphoria = government sledgehammer
Rinse and repeat.

A few short years from now, once the government has forced the Redskins to abandon their name, the Dems will forget all about whatever Native American Tribe brought this lawsuit, pat them on the head, and send them back to run their casinos. Oh. And they’ll be “on the plantation” and they’ll vote Democrat.

Skiritae on June 18, 2014 at 4:44 PM

If this stands, they can go after the Braves, the Indians, the Vikings, and the Fighting Irish. Every one of those teams should stand behind the Redskins, now, with money.
njcommuter on June 18, 2014 at 12:07 PM

They also need to cancel the trademark for the name “Yankees.”

The term smacks of western imperialism. Also, for those of us born and raised in the south, it reeks of northern aggression. Where I grew up, calling someone a “yankee” was the lowest form of insult.

The term continues to offend me, and many of my people, who were killed, robbed, and oppressed for years by yankee invaders. Therefore, I demand that the term stop being protected by trademark.

BTW, I am also offended by the name “LaRaza” — for all the obvious reasons. It is clearly racist and offensive to those of us not hispanic. Why is it still permitted to be used?

AZCoyote on June 18, 2014 at 4:58 PM

Other suggestions…

Washington Libtards

Washington MFers

Washington Leeches

txdoc on June 18, 2014 at 12:14 PM

Washington Tyrant

ConstantineXI on June 18, 2014 at 12:15 PM

Washington Rent-seekers?

WisRich on June 18, 2014 at 12:16 PM

..Washington Foreskins?

(Disclaimer: I only briefly browsed the thread; this may have been posted already.)

The War Planner on June 18, 2014 at 5:02 PM

Could these Dems, this DOJ, this Admin/WH play any smaller ball than this?

How stupid while Rome burns…how stupid

gracie on June 18, 2014 at 5:13 PM

“Barack Obama” determined to be disparaging to a substantial number of people, and has been removed from all government documents.

BobMbx on June 18, 2014 at 5:26 PM

Harry Reid, I LOATHE you. And Terry Bradshaw, you are dead to me.

bernzright777 on June 18, 2014 at 5:42 PM

Time to move the team from Washington as they obviously don’t want the team there.

sadatoni on June 18, 2014 at 5:49 PM

The long arm of Obama’s repressive government while most of his agencies are under Congressional investigation for corruption. Their belief that they’re beyond the law.

RdLake on June 18, 2014 at 5:51 PM

Since no one else will be allowed to trademark the name either, what difference does it make?

Meremortal on June 18, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Cut a $$$ deal with an Indian tribe to sponsor their Tribes Name, give the tribe a percentage of the teams memorabilia and concessions sale to benefit that tribes Schools and Native American education programs. Move the team to L.A. and call the team the Screaming Creeks, Seminoles, Black Foot or whoever signs up.

Wallythedog on June 18, 2014 at 6:00 PM

Change the team name to “PALE FACES“.

felixalbatros on June 18, 2014 at 6:10 PM

What about the:

Washington Whores?
Seems to fit multiple demographics there.

Washington STDs
What could be better than standing with those afflicted with medical issues (and they could be sales peeps for the virtues of ObamaCare).

Washington Jackpiles
Does much symbolize the city better than a pile of …

Washington Loonies
Congress, Media, the Administration, who couldn’t support that branding?

Washington Peace Doves
Released at every game, set free and cheered as a symbol of liberty.

Washington Benees
Nothing says DC like dependency

Washington Pansies
Flag football is coming so why not just force a rule change for the NFL so everyone can be included? And make the showers open to everyone, maybe they could do wicked stuff with the cheer squad at halftime to keep fans coming?

And finally….

The Washington Sucks
Because really doesn’t it?

PappyD61 on June 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM

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.

***
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.

Comment 1. Dan Snyder would still be able to assert common law trademark rights against infringers.
Comment 2. No “mark” is being cancelled. It is the U.S. registration of the mark that is being cancelled. See comment 1.
Comment 3. So a minority of an ethnic group gets to claim victim status. Sad.

Ira on June 18, 2014 at 6:38 PM

Snyder will win in court..This is wrong on so many levels..Team Obie has no shame and no clothes either..:)

Dire Straits on June 18, 2014 at 6:44 PM

In all seriousness, this ruling means nothing. The Redskins own the trademark and no one can take it away. I can’t wait for some dimwit to try to use the trademark and watch the lawsuits commence

Brock Robamney on June 18, 2014 at 6:49 PM

They’re not requiring changing the team name, they’re removing the trademark protection of the name.
sandbun on June 18, 2014 at 4:08 PM

Which per Common Law they don’t have authority to do. They may be able to keep the team for registering the trademark, but they are not able to strip the trademark from the REDSKINS

Brock Robamney on June 18, 2014 at 6:53 PM

David Burge‏@iowahawkblog ·
#NewRedskinsName The Washington Helmet Warning Stickers

tanked59 on June 18, 2014 at 6:57 PM

How long will it be before King Putt decrees the “New England Patriots” and everything associated with that name are racist and demeaning to well, all people of color?

WAKE UP.

dogsoldier on June 18, 2014 at 7:13 PM

Oh and this is another

SQUIRREL!

dogsoldier on June 18, 2014 at 7:14 PM

Don’t call them Washington anything. Call them the D.C. Comics.

HiJack on June 18, 2014 at 7:28 PM

Perhaps we should start a new team – the Washington Morons -
then sit back and wait for the lawsuits!

How many will be so stupid as to protest?

Amjean on June 18, 2014 at 7:44 PM

PappyD61 on June 18, 2014 at 6:33 PM

The Redskins are a flagship professional football team. They have been around for over 80 years, much longer than most of the people complaining about them have been alive. My father started to listen to them on the radio in the 1940′s. The Redskins Radio Network was the largest in the country transmitting from Maryland the Florida. Sammy Baugh, often cited as the best football player of all time, the man who made the forward pass a part of the game, was a Redskin. The Redskins are not defined by Washington, they are defined by their name, which has always represented strength and honor. If you want to rename the Redskins, I suggest you change where they are from. They play in Maryland and practice in Virginia.

fight like a girl on June 18, 2014 at 7:57 PM

INDIANapols, INDIANa-have you ever heard of such hate drenched, mocking, nasty, insulting, bigoted names? Henceforth this city and state must be known as Apolis, A.

MaiDee on June 18, 2014 at 8:00 PM

Ladies and gentlemen, the Washington Tea Partiers!

higgins1991 on June 18, 2014 at 8:09 PM

INDIANapols, INDIANa-have you ever heard of such hate drenched, mocking, nasty, insulting, bigoted names? Henceforth this city and state must be known as Apolis, A.

Or Redskinapolis, Redskiniana

MaiDee on June 18, 2014 at 8:11 PM

According to Mark Levin, the Patent Office tried this in 1999 and lost in court in 2003… they should go right back to that court for an immediate injunction and motion for summary judgement…

Now off to NFL.com to buy an officially licensed hat

phreshone on June 18, 2014 at 8:14 PM

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

Really?! If thats true then I find every single government application/form/census to be racist because it demands to know if I am white or black, thus boiling me down to my skin color. And after all, anything involving skin color is racist!

Scottie on June 18, 2014 at 8:15 PM

ThinSkins!!!

Bmore on June 18, 2014 at 8:20 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4