the Washington Redskin trademark because it is "disparaging to Native Americans".
Last edited by a moderator:
LOCKED-Wow - US Patent Office canceled...
- Thread starter dawgstudent
- Start date
- Status
I assume only the trademarks including the word "redskin"?
Can't find any detailed articles at the moment...
Can't find any detailed articles at the moment...
I hope they end the racial "disparaging" and change the team name to the Washington W.A.S.P.s ... with that critter from the Honey Nut Cheerios commercials as their mascot.
View attachment 802
Last edited:
If you're in favor of keeping a straight-up racial slur as the team name because of "tradition" or whatever, hey great. Just realize that some of the people in that camp are profoundly, window-licking, paste-eating, unawarely, unapologetically stuuuuuuuupid.
Last edited:
Boom. There is absolutely no rational defense for having that name associated with your team. Get the 17 over it Snyder.
This stuff always happens when the administration needs a distraction from reality. We need something to distract everyone from "losing" the IRS emails, Russia situation with Ukraine, Iraq blowing up again, etc. Surely the name of the Washington football team is more deserving of our focus.
Last edited:
I've felt for a long time that Redskins is the one truly offensive Native American name in sports. The really isn't a good defense for it. And regardless of anyone's opinion on this issue, the fact is Dan Snyder is fighting a losing battle on this. This is a fight he will not win.
Next you'll be blaming your ****** marriage and your kid's low ACT scores on Obama.....
He's recently softened his stance. A couple days ago, I heard Goodell on a radio interview and he pretty much punted on the subject. He said "it's up to the Redskins organization to make that decision". He was then pressed with "if Snyder decides to keep the name, do you support it?" He replied with "that's up to the organization to make that decision" and kept giving that line. He didn't position himself any corner.
There was plenty of due process. This decision is the result of a cancellation proceeding filed by native americans over 8 years ago, that included exhaustive discovery and briefing by both the complainants and the registrant (The Washington Redskins), and probably oral arguments as well although that is not required. It is also not the first time the TTAB has cancelled the registrations, but the last time the Appellate court threw out the decision on the grounds that the complainants lacked standing to file their action. The Redskins (the team, not the actual native americans) will likely appeal again.
Also, this is kind of weird, but losing their federal registration doesn't really mean that much at this point in time. They still own the trademark rights, they just don't have registration. Registration is nice to have in most cases because it eliminates some of your legal hurdles -- like proving ownership of the mark -- but an NFL franchise would have little trouble with those issues.
Now that I'm at an age where the folks around my parents' age are nearing their expected retirement, I swear... if I have to hear one more person that hasn't saved a dime for their retirement blame the government and Obamacare, I'm gonna snap very soon.
Official Message from Redskins Trademark Attorney
<tbody>
</tbody>
This message contains graphics. If you do not see the graphics, click here to view.<o
></o>
></o><!-- // Begin Template Header \ -->
|
Actually, having discussed this with a couple of other attorneys, the cancellation of the registrations could ultimately be fatal to the Washington Redskins trademarks. There is a theory that, since the law clearly states disparaging marks cannot be registered, then federal and state laws cannot be used in any way to protect such marks. Additional, common law trademark rights could not be asserted to circumvent the clear public policy of the statutes. So, if the Washington Redskins wanted to sue someone for infringing their Redskins trademarks, they would first have to prove that their marks were not disparaging and could be subject to legal protection, which would be tough to do if the current decision is upheld.
Of course, their indian head logo is still protectable (for now), so it would just be marks that include the word "Redskins".
Of course, their indian head logo is still protectable (for now), so it would just be marks that include the word "Redskins".
Now its time to pull the plug on the Cleveland Indians mascot, chief Wahoo. Forget about the cartoonish image for a second the name of the mascot wahoo is beyond insulting. also the image itself is way more offensive than the redskins image.
What blows my mind about the whole redskins controversy is that Goodell refuses to admit its offensive. Heres a guy who fined a player for tweeting about two guys kissing on tv is gross but yet he refuses to acknowledge how that term redskins is viewed so negatively toward an entire race of people. He also will suspend a guy for an entire season for testing positive for weed but not a game for a guy that beat up his fiance. Goodell has a track record for creating a double standard in his league.
And Is the name really worth defending in the long run? The basketball team in Washington changed its name from bullets to wizards because they didnt want to be associated with gun violence and that name offended zero amount people. Mississippi's colonel reb vaguely reminded people of a dark past in the south and they dumped the character. Redskins is without a doubt an in your face offensive term.
I know I'm all over the place with this post but I feel like its ridiculous it is even debatable in this day and age of political correctness.
What blows my mind about the whole redskins controversy is that Goodell refuses to admit its offensive. Heres a guy who fined a player for tweeting about two guys kissing on tv is gross but yet he refuses to acknowledge how that term redskins is viewed so negatively toward an entire race of people. He also will suspend a guy for an entire season for testing positive for weed but not a game for a guy that beat up his fiance. Goodell has a track record for creating a double standard in his league.
And Is the name really worth defending in the long run? The basketball team in Washington changed its name from bullets to wizards because they didnt want to be associated with gun violence and that name offended zero amount people. Mississippi's colonel reb vaguely reminded people of a dark past in the south and they dumped the character. Redskins is without a doubt an in your face offensive term.
I know I'm all over the place with this post but I feel like its ridiculous it is even debatable in this day and age of political correctness.
I don't think I would want to appear to be running to the defense of
Obama these days.
Obama these days.
Because Obama is so powerful that he personally decides the rulings of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and even directs it on when to issue rulings. The fact that this issue has been before the board since 1992 is immaterial.**
The will still be he Redskins until the NFL makes them change it. They just don't own the exclusive rights to the Washington Redskins anymore.
There will be another appeal..
There will be another appeal..
Obama has more power than you think...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...70b914-2b70-11e3-8ade-a1f23cda135e_story.html
Then there is this Guy Harry..
http://ftw.usatoday.com/2014/06/harry-reid-washington-redskins
Maybe it's not Obama, but what a convenient controversy to take attention away form the real scandals and failures of the current administration. I am sure it's a welcome one on Penn Ave.
Benghazi, IRS, Obamacare, Fast and Furious, NSA, VA, Bergdahl prisoner trade, Iraq falling apart.
http://www.commdiginews.com/politic...-president-obama-updated-for-june-2014-19663/
The difference is that Notre Dame is an Irish Catholic institution that chose a mascot and image that they have a vested and historical stake in; not the case with the "Redskins" football team.
Man, I'm this country is moving along so well that the government has time to
Focus on football names. Now I'm off to pay 6 bucks for ground beef, 3.65 for gas, pay my ever increasing electric bill, buy some 5 dollar apiece light bulbs, purchase a 7 dollar bottle of gas treatment so I can run high ethanol content 3.65 a gallon gas in my mower.... Make that 5 so I can put some in my boat too, schedule my red snapper fishing trip... Uhh... Maybe next year, pay my higher insurance........
but that damn football owner got a finger in the eye at least! Oooooh. Look at that red herring!!!!
Focus on football names. Now I'm off to pay 6 bucks for ground beef, 3.65 for gas, pay my ever increasing electric bill, buy some 5 dollar apiece light bulbs, purchase a 7 dollar bottle of gas treatment so I can run high ethanol content 3.65 a gallon gas in my mower.... Make that 5 so I can put some in my boat too, schedule my red snapper fishing trip... Uhh... Maybe next year, pay my higher insurance........
but that damn football owner got a finger in the eye at least! Oooooh. Look at that red herring!!!!
I agree that on the surface it sounds like a slur, but is it?
From everything I have read about the origin of the term redskin, it originated from the tribes themselves as a way of distinguishing the Native American tribes from the white settlers. It also was not referring to skin color at all, but because many of the tribes in the northeast would paint their faces and bodies with red paint. It was a term frequently used throughout the 1800's by various Native American leaders in treaty negotiations. The most notable derogatory use of the word was from L. Frank Baum who wrote The Wizard of Oz in an editorial celebrating the death of Sitting Bull and calling for the extinction of all Native Americans. So should the Wizard of Oz movie be boycotted?
Also if it was such an offensive term to Native Americans, why would several Native American high schools still use it as their mascot (i.e. Red Mesa High School in Arizona which is nearly 100% Navajo).
I would think the Cleveland Indians would be more offensive to Native Americans. They still use the word "indians" as their team name and have a overtly racist portrayal of a Native American chief in Chief Wahoo. If I was a Seminole, on the other hand, I would be proud of the use of Osceola and Renegade before FSU games. That is one of the coolest pregame traditions in all of sports.
I have both Chickasaw and Choctaw in my family history. My wife is a Cherokee descendant. We are both proud of our Native American ancestry and aware of the way our great-grandparents were treated. The sad truth is that unless you live near a reservation, a person could grow up today without ever seeing a full-blooded Native American. If we remove every symbol and mascot that offends someone, I fear that the Native American history will lose its impact on future generations.
From everything I have read about the origin of the term redskin, it originated from the tribes themselves as a way of distinguishing the Native American tribes from the white settlers. It also was not referring to skin color at all, but because many of the tribes in the northeast would paint their faces and bodies with red paint. It was a term frequently used throughout the 1800's by various Native American leaders in treaty negotiations. The most notable derogatory use of the word was from L. Frank Baum who wrote The Wizard of Oz in an editorial celebrating the death of Sitting Bull and calling for the extinction of all Native Americans. So should the Wizard of Oz movie be boycotted?
Also if it was such an offensive term to Native Americans, why would several Native American high schools still use it as their mascot (i.e. Red Mesa High School in Arizona which is nearly 100% Navajo).
I would think the Cleveland Indians would be more offensive to Native Americans. They still use the word "indians" as their team name and have a overtly racist portrayal of a Native American chief in Chief Wahoo. If I was a Seminole, on the other hand, I would be proud of the use of Osceola and Renegade before FSU games. That is one of the coolest pregame traditions in all of sports.
I have both Chickasaw and Choctaw in my family history. My wife is a Cherokee descendant. We are both proud of our Native American ancestry and aware of the way our great-grandparents were treated. The sad truth is that unless you live near a reservation, a person could grow up today without ever seeing a full-blooded Native American. If we remove every symbol and mascot that offends someone, I fear that the Native American history will lose its impact on future generations.
Is that you JT?
$6 for groundbeef; that's a tad exaggerated. What kind of grind are you getting? Filet?
I just bought beef from Kroger (which is more expensive than Walmart, btw) this past Sunday, and it was like $3.50 or 3.99 a pound. I got some good 85/15 too. Truths, half-truths, and lies.
Redsnapper trip, eh? You must be reeeeaaaallly hurting financially, bro.
- Status