Judge Orders Cancellation of "Disparaging" Washington NFL Trademarks

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

A federal judge has ordered the cancellation of the Washington NFL team's registered trademarks, upholding the United States Patent and Trademark Office's 2014 ruling that the trademarks are "disparaging" to Native Americans. (Names that "may disparage" individuals or groups are ineligible for federal trademarking under the Lanham Act.)

 

This doesn't, however, mean the team will be forced to stop using its nickname, only that it may eventually lose certain trademark protections. As the Washington Post notes, the cancellation doesn't go into effect until the team has "exhausted the appeals process in the federal court system," and protections are still available at the state level.

 

 

Link

 

I'm going to start a Redskins pizza chain and use their logo.

[edjr 5,564]

 

Link

 

I'm going to start a Redskins pizza chain and use their logo.

 

Isn't the idea to get customers?

[BunnysBastatrds 1,915]

 

Isn't the idea to get customers?

I was thinking liquor store.

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

Isn't the idea to get customers?

 

I'll sell firewater too.

[RLLD 3,455]

Looking forward to see where this one ends up

[DankNuggs 305]

make potato skins out of red potatoes... fill with various fillings like buffalo chicken, mac & cheese, mexican. Slap on redskin logo and go public!

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

Looking forward to see where this one ends up

 

What's Anthony Kennedy's favorite football team?

[wiffleball 4,640]

so, can we not say redhead anymore?

[Vikings4ever 496]

So is the Fighting Irish and their mascot (taken less than generously), a drunken leprechaun in a bar fight, next?

[GobbleDog 816]

Names that "may disparage" individuals or groups are ineligible for federal trademarking under the Lanham Act.

 

So the Washington Redskins injun chief is disparaging, but the Cleveland Indians injun grinning ear to ear isn't.

[RLLD 3,455]

so, can we not say redhead anymore?

 

That's just hateful and intolerant

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

So the Washington Redskins injun chief is disparaging, but the Cleveland Indians injun grinning ear to ear isn't.

 

That one will go too eventually---Redskins is much easier to claim as disparaging.

[5-Points 2,729]

So is the Fighting Irish and their mascot (taken less than generously), a drunken leprechaun in a bar fight, next?

Doubtful. Micks are a thick skinned bunch.

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

So is the Fighting Irish and their mascot (taken less than generously), a drunken leprechaun in a bar fight, next?

 

 

How The “Redskins” Debate Goes Over On An Actual Indian Reservation

 

Meanwhile, ESPN’s Rick Reilly interviewed teachers and administrators from a handful of reservation and majority-Native American high schools that use the Redskins name. He found that at those schools, the nickname can actually be a matter of pride. But where Reilly errs is in comparing the Washington, D.C., Redskins to largely Native schools — and to Notre Dame, whose teams of course go by the nickname “Fighting Irish.” It’s unclear exactly where the term “Fighting Irish” originated, but most stories have it as an insult directed at Notre Dame players, who then took it on as a mark of pride, turning the insult into a hard-won honorific, just as any number of ethnic, religious and sexual-orientation minorities have taken on derogatory terms in the same way.

 

[GobbleDog 816]

 

Redskins is much easier to claim as disparaging.

 

I'd think the opposite. The Redskin logo looks noble while the Cleveland injun looks like a ridiculous cartoon character. I could understand drunken injuns being bothered by that.

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

I'd think the opposite. The Redskin logo looks noble while the Cleveland injun looks like a ridiculous cartoon character. I could understand drunken injuns being bothered by that.

 

It's not the logo, it's the term "Redskin".

 

From wiki:

 

The origin of the word "redskin" is debated. Some scholars say that it was coined by early settlers in reference to the skin tone of Native Americans, while others say it referred to the color of the body paint used by certain tribes. During the late 18th and early 19th centuries, European Americans wanted a term which all could use to refer to all Native Americans in negotiating treaties that involved different tribes. They adopted the color metaphors used at that time for race pointing to continental origins: white men, black men and red men.

 

Ives Goddard, a Smithsonian Institution senior linguist and curator emeritus, asserts that the term was originally benign in meaning, and reflected positive aspects of early relations between Native Americans and whites. It emerged at a specific period in history (1769–1826) among a small group of men linked by joint activities; this provided its context. Goddard cites historical instances of Native Americans identifying as red men, or RED-SKIN, and redskins.[15] However in an interview Goddard admits that it is impossible to verify if the native words were accurately translated.[16] Johnathan Buffalo, historic preservation director of the Meskwaki Nation, also known as the Sac and Fox Tribe of the Mississippi in Iowa, said tribal members in the 1800s used "redskins" as a simple term of identifying themselves — just as they identified others as "whiteskins" or "blackskins" — without any derogatory intent.[17]

In 1971, the group Indians of All Nations launched the Red Power movement to gain greater control over their own education and economic affairs on reservations.[18] Several of the founders of the American Indian Movement, including Clyde Bellecourt, Vernon Bellecourt,[19] and Russel Means,[20] were also the first to protest the use of "Redskins" by the Washington team.

 

In a lecture on the origins and meaning of "redskin", Dr. Darren R. Reid of Coventry University presents a number of reasons why he argues the term is racist. To begin with, it is difficult for historians to document anything with certainty since Native Americans, as a non-literate society, did not produce the written sources upon which historians rely. What is cited as Native American usage was generally attributed to them by European writers. Also, the division of human beings into different races with essentially different, immutable characteristics was evolving during the period of European colonization; thus there were some that did not think of "Indians" as a race at all, but people who could become members of colonial society though re-education. Many colonials thought of Indians as essentially the same color as Europeans who became "red" through the use of pigments. The use of "Redskin" rather than "Indian" thus marked the speaker as believing that Native Americans are a different race than Europeans in the same way that African people are "black". The use of "red" in its various forms, including redskin, by Native Americans to refer to themselves was not likely original, but reflected their need to use the language of the times in order to be understood by Europeans. The team logo works together with the name to reinforce an unrealistic stereotype: "It is not up to non-Indians to define an idealized image of what it is to a Native American." The "positive" stereotypes allow fans and supporters to honestly state that they are honoring Native Americans, but this is "...forcing your idea of what it is to honour those people onto them and that, fundamentally, is disrespectful."[21]

 

Michael Taylor of Colgate University states other uses: "The term 'redskin' comes from the Colonial era, when some Native Americans were killed in clashes with newly arrived settlers and others were hunted down for a bounty."[22] Roxanne Dunbar-Ortiz also states as much on page 65 of her book "An Indigenous Peoples' History of the United States": "The settlers gave a name to the mutilated and bloody corpses they left in the wake of scalp-hunts: redskins."[23]

A linguistic analysis of 42 books published between 1875 and 1930 shows that negative contexts in the use of "redskin" were significantly more frequent than positive usage. The use of the word Indian to refer to Native Americans in a similarly selected set of books was more balanced, though negative contexts outnumbered positive contexts.[24] As with any term perceived to be discriminatory, different individuals may hold differing opinions of the term's appropriateness.[25] In current dictionaries of American English, the word is classified as "usually offensive",[26] "disparaging",[27][28] "insulting",[29] and "taboo".[30] The usage section of the definition of "redskin" in the Oxford English Dictionary states that through the process of pejoration, the originally neutral term acquired an unfavorable connotation and became a term of disparagement.[31] It is generally avoided in public usage with the exception of a name for sports teams. The American Heritage style guide advises that "the term redskin evokes an even more objectionable stereotype" than the use of red as a racial adjective by outsiders,[32] while others urge writers to use the term only in a historical context.[33]

 

Native American writer and attorney Gyasi Ross compares Native American use of variations of the r-word with African-American use of variations of the n-word. The use of these terms by some members of minority communities does not mean that these words may be used by outsiders. Ross also notes that while activism on the issue may be from a minority of Native Americans, this is due to most being concerned with more immediate issues, but also says "The presentation of the name "Redskins" is problematic for many Native Americans because it identifies Natives in a way that the vast majority of Natives simply don't identity ourselves."[34] These are examples of "reappropriation", in which images and symbols used as disparaging are "owned" by the target group as part of reclaiming control of their identity.

Columnist Charles Krauthammer suggested the etymology is somewhat irrelevant to the debate, as meanings change over time. He compared "redskin" to "negro": "Fifty years ago the preferred, most respectful term for African Americans was Negro. [...] The preferred term is now black or African American. With a rare few legacy exceptions, Negro carries an unmistakably patronizing and demeaning tone."[35]

Luvell Anderson, a philosophy professor at The University of Memphis, says that in order for a term to be a slur, it must carry negative ideas, apart from simply being a racial descriptor.[36] In the Washington Redskins trademark litigation, the main issue was the meaning of the term during the period when the trademark registrations were issued, 1967–90, which was 35 years after the name was chosen. Dictionaries when the name was chosen, and through the 1960s and 1970s defined the term as simply: a North American Indian, but by the early 1990s had added the current negative connotations. The linguistic expert for the petitioners, Dr. Geoffrey Nunberg, argued that whatever its origins, "redskins" was a slur at the time of the trademarks, based upon the passages from books and newspapers and the movie clips in which the word is inevitably associated with contempt, derision, condescension, or sentimental paeans to the noble savage.[37]

 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has defended the teams use of the name, by stating, " "The Washington Redskins name has from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect."[38] The argument for an independent, non-derogatory meaning of the term in context of the team's name was also made during the trademark case. The TTAB decision included a rejection of this argument, stating that the dictionary definitions and general usage of "redskin" place the word in a negative context.[39]

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

I'd think the opposite. The Redskin logo looks noble while the Cleveland injun looks like a ridiculous cartoon character. I could understand drunken injuns being bothered by that.

Totally agree

[wiffleball 4,640]

Jeesus, honcho. Werds....

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

Jeesus, honcho. Werds....

 

Translation for wiffle.

 

"Redskin" = bad.

[wiffleball 4,640]

 

Translation for wiffle.

 

"Redskin" = bad.

Thanks!

[KSB2424 3,083]

Jeesus, honcho. Werds....

 

All those words should tell you its not a cut and dry topic. There are questions if it's always or just rencently been deemed "derogatory", etc., its controversial. Some historians think it is a benign word, others argue it was derogatory. There is no consensus.....unlike the N word or others like that.

 

Teams don't name their mascots after derogatory meanings. There was no malice, no reason to name the football team something that is derogatory.

 

I couldn't care less if they change the name, no skin off my head, but I think Roger Goodell stated it best:

 

NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell has defended the teams use of the name, by stating, " "The Washington Redskins name has from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. For the team’s millions of fans and customers, who represent one of America’s most ethnically and geographically diverse fan bases, the name is a unifying force that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect."

 

Of course if any percentage of poeple find something offensive, even if that percentage is the vocal uber minority, you have to change it.....in.....America.

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

All those words should tell you its not a cut and dry topic. There are questions if it's always or just rencently been deemed "derogatory", etc., its controversial. Some historians think it is a benign word, others argue it was derogatory. There is no consensus.....unlike the N word or others like that.

 

Teams don't name their mascots after derogatory meanings. There was no malice, no reason to name the football team something that is derogatory.

 

I couldn't care less if they change the name, no skin off my head, but I think Roger Goodell stated it best:

 

 

Of course if any percentage of poeple find something offensive, even if that percentage is the vocal uber minority, you have to change it.....in.....America.

 

And by recently you mean...150 years ago, cause that's how long at least it's been used as a derogatory term. And as how they got the name without malice, who cares...they chose the name ignorantly, so it's okay?

 

Finally, anytime you have to go to confirmed liar Goodell to sum up your case...you lost.

 

How they became the Redskins:

 

A new article in a local law publication discloses a couple of fresh details about the name’s history and current legal status that will further discomfit Snyder.

 

Admittedly, the author of the article in the Washington Lawyer is hardly a disinterested party. He is attorney Jesse Witten, who represents a group of Indians who have filed a high-stakes lawsuit against the team in federal trademark court.

But the facts that Witten cites don’t appear to be in dispute.

 

In particular, he demolishes one of the team’s cherished myths about why the current name was selected in 1933.

 

At the time, the team was based in Boston and was called the Braves.

 

The team and NFL have claimed that then-owner George Preston Marshall picked the current name to honor the team’s Indian coach, William “Lone Star” Dietz, and some Indian players on the squad.

 

There’s a lot of controversy over whether Dietz was actually a Native American. Witten’s article doesn’t resolve that. But it does refute the team’s contention that the name was selected to celebrate Dietz.

 

The proof is in a July 6, 1933, edition of the Hartford Courant, which Witten unearthed after the sports Web site MMQB tipped him off about it.

 

The edition includes a short Associated Press dispatch quoting Marshall saying: “The fact that we have in our head coach, Lone Star Dietz, an Indian, together with several Indian players, has not, as may be suspected, inspired me to select the name Redskins.”

 

Instead, Marshall explains, he gave up “Braves” to avoid confusion with a Boston professional baseball team of the same name. He apparently picked the Redskins name so he could keep the existing Native American logo.

 

 

The name was chosen for one reason, money. Nothing to do with honoring Indians...owner didn't want to buy new uniforms.

[Strike 3,974]

Redskins gonna win thanks to asian group "The Slants":

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/justices-appear-willing-to-protect-offensive-trademarks.html

 

[NorthernVike 2,080]

MAGA

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Redskins gonna win thanks to asian group "The Slants":

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/18/us/politics/justices-appear-willing-to-protect-offensive-trademarks.html

 

That, and the SC decided that the PTO really shouldn't be deciding 1st Amendment issues.

[Voltaire 4,558]

MAGA

Hopefully a new president that don't give a rat's ass about catering the the needs of the politically correct can shepherd us out of this era of constant whining and take us back to "who cares?".

[TimmySmith 2,782]

“No one is stopping your client from calling themselves the Slants,” said Sotomayor, adding, “You are asking the government to endorse your name.”

 

Sotomayor wondered about a hypothetical trademark: “Trump is a thief.”

“Even if they go to court and prove that that’s a libel or a slander, that trademark would still exist and would be capable of use because otherwise canceling it would be an abridgment of the First Amendment?” Sotomayor asked.

People think Clarence Thomas is an idiot, but at least he keeps his mouth shut. Sotomayer is on another planet. This is why the court needed Scalia.

[Strike 3,974]

The Slants, and the Redskins, WIN!!!!!

 

 

http://www.espn.com/nfl/story/_/id/19678652/supreme-court-gives-washington-redskins-boost-name-fight

 

[wiffleball 4,640]

Seems like a fair ruling.

 

 

My view all along has been 'offensive' or 'disparaging' is so subjective and such a slippery slope.

 

For example, how long before fatties sue the makers of the 'fat Darryl' sandwich? 'Devils Food' because it's black? Etc...

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Astounding that a lower court could be so wrong about something, and that the PTO dug in it's heels on something way out of their jurisdiction. MAGA gets another win over snoflake world.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Seems like a fair ruling.

 

My view all along has been 'offensive' or 'disparaging' is so subjective and such a slippery slope.

Had less to do with that and more to do with the PTO position that the Federal Government is "supporting" your idea by granting you protections. The SC just told the snoflakes at the PTO to fill out the forms and STFU.

[wiffleball 4,640]

Had less to do with that and more to do with the PTO position that the Federal Government is "supporting" your idea by granting you protections. The SC just told the snoflakes at the PTO to fill out the forms and STFU.

Seems consistent with telling some biitch county clerk to just sign marriage certs and STFUP.

 

I approve this message.

[Strike 3,974]

Yup. This really was an obvious decision. You just never know how the SCOTUS is going to rule these days.

[TimmySmith 2,782]

Seems consistent with telling some biitch county clerk to just sign marriage certs and STFUP.

 

 

I'd say that's a pretty fair comparison.

[kilroy69 994]

I am going to start a ticket scalping business and name it redskins.

[drobeski 3,061]

[Mike Honcho 4,031]

 

Quote

 

Washington and the N.F.L. Might Change the Redskins Name.

“In light of recent events around our country and feedback from our community, the Washington Redskins are announcing the team will undergo a thorough review of the team’s name,” the team said in a statement Friday morning. The brief statement, which itself included the word “redskins” seven times, also said the team had been discussing its name with the N.F.L. for weeks.

The change to that ironclad stance came just one day after two prominent corporate sponsors, FedEx and Nike, began backing away from the team’s name, which quickly prompted others to follow suit on Friday.

 

 

Washington Swamp Things?

[drobeski 3,061]

20 minutes ago, Mike Honcho said:

 

 

Washington Swamp Things?

How about the Washington Pacifiers for getting all the crybabies to shut up ?

[Voltaire 4,558]

Washington Lobbyists

[JustinCharge 2,397]

On 7/8/2015 at 12:40 PM, Mike Honcho said:

 

Translation for wiffle.

 

"Redskin" = bad.

The problem is that this will never end.  Liberals can just suddenly decide any word is offensive and get it banned.  Far too many people instinctively know this and realize that its all bullshiit.  People will see thru you.  Do you really care this much about native americans?  Obviously not because you never discuss them outside of Redskins being offensive.  So if you don't care, then you are using an ethnic group as a political football.  And that makes you a huge racist.