OT: USPTO cancels six trademarks for the Washington Redskins EDITED
The USPTO has cancelled six of the trademarks belonging to the Washington Redskins on the ground that the registrations were obtained contrary to Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.
[Obviously, this will put Dan Snyder and the NFL in an interesting position since it is very difficult to promote a brand lacking vital intellectual property protections. Not sure that the NFL minds this decision, though, since the USPTO has essentially taken the decision of whether to force Snyder to change the team name out of Snyder's hands. To the people who wanted to keep the team name, the USPTO, and not the NFL, is now the "bad guy".] EDIT: This is all wrong according to a dog with a Michigan football hat who claims to be a lawyer, since this decision wouldn't really prevent the Redskins from protecting their name/logo/etc under other Federal/State laws.
Opinion here: http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199
I have no idea whether it is appropriate to name a team the "Hurons" or "Seminoles"... I'm pretty damn sure the "Fightin' Irish" name is used, and always has been used with pride and good humor for all involved. It is pretty clear to me that "redskins" is a slur.... like dago, or gook or n____. If a Native American high school wants to call themselves the "Redskins" they are doing it in a similar way that many black folks call themselves n____ or celebrate "thug life". I'm uncomfortable with it, but it's their business. The Washington NFL franchise however......
I kind of feel like if you don't want other ppl calling you something, then you shouldn't call yourself that same thing.... It confuses the heck out of ppl.
I know there is a whole "own the word" movement... but honestly, it just confuses ppl.
I was only trying to point out (one of many) differences between a native american high school's use of "redskin" and an NFL franchise's. I think the use of n___ should be more widespread in contexts like this where it is just the word itself being discussed. Refering to it the way I did in the last sentence gives it too much damn power. The word should be pretty much eliminated as a moniker no matter what color the person is who is tempted to use it.
That said, the "Fighting" part was always just an accepted modifier to just about everyone's mascot name, so it's not a unique comment on "Irish"
or those of the poles or italians etc. But from the ND perspective, "Fightin' Irish" isn't derogatory. Furthermore it isn't a slur like n___ or "dago". Hence my "good humor" statement. It's jsut very common to use "Fightin' Irish" to defend the use of "Redskins". IMO it is an incredibly weak analogy (for reasons I've tried to explain over several posts now).
about the balance between the potentially offensive nature and the nature of the name itself.
Does "Vikings" potentially cast aspersions on the nordic peoples as being warlike? Eh, maybe. But it is a historically accurate name, and contains generally neutral connotations. Fighting Irish SOUNDS potentially bad, but if you read the generally accepted histories of the name (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Notre_Dame_Fighting_Irish#Moniker), it doesn't sound terribly demeaning.
This isn't like when they named the coffee chain in the Lansing area "Beaners" a while back, but changed it to Biggby a couple of years ago because... well, Beaners is a bad thing to name something. "Redskins" was a slur when they picked it, it's a slur today, and it doesn't contain connotations other than (a) being a team name they've used for a while, and (b) being a slur.
That also wasn't an ethnic or racial group. It was a profession.
It means "Expedition", but I suppose that's pretty much the same. As an Anglo-Saxonist, I've always preferred to call them "Danes".
Yeah, the "fighting Irish" being based on soldiers is quite a stretch, about as much of a stretch as saying Redskins is a term of endearment so should be acceptable. One difference, of course, is that there are and have been plenty of Irish players who play for ND. But if we're honest, the "fighting" aspect comes from perceptions of Irish immigrants getting drunk and brawling as a characteristic of Irish behavior, and yes, it is part of a broad aspect of negative attitudes toward Irish that was prevalent in the US in the 19th and early 20th century.
To be honest, I'm not even thinking about the "Fighting Irish" name, just the cariacatured logo. Let's say for a minute that we believe any racial cariacature is equally bad - then what would make Chief Wahoo any worse than the silly-looking leprechaun with his dukes up?
what would make Chief Wahoo any worse than the silly-looking leprechaun with his dukes up?
Now I'm just spit-balling here, but I'm gonna say it's b/c leprechauns aren't real?
I'd buy that if the team name were "Fighting Leprechauns." There was never a real person named Chief Illiniwek, either.
I'm not going to even try and claim equivalency here, but Minnesota's portrayal of VIktor the Viking does allude to the lowest common denominator of the medieval Scandinavian stereotype. The Vikings were fierce warriors, for certain, but they were also skilled artisans, naval engineers, sailors, diplomats, and economists. I'm not saying the portrayal is insensitive, but depending upon your sensibility if you were of Scandinavian decent, I can see how it could be considered unflattering.
As an American of primarily Irish decent, I can say that I don't mind the "Fighting Irish" moniker. I'm not thrilled by it either, but I'm probably a little biased because I fucking hate Notre Dame.
Vikings were extremely skilled, have a rich heritage, and were also much, much more intelligent than people give them credit for. HOWEVA, they were freaking terrifying and pretty ruthless. It's not like any mascot shows them raping a Nun or burning a church down.
If that's the standard, Redskins should be fine then.
if it's a process at all (the club denies it). Sometimes they wear the C, sometimes they wear Wahoo. And there's still a Wahoo on the shirt sleeve.
They have made the block C the official logo this year, and I've suspected you're right and it's a slow phase out. They don't want to piss off the fans that would object to "political correctness"; they'd rather it simply disappear instead of making a formal statement distancing themselves.
But it's also possible they're just creating alternate merchandise so that fans like me that would rather not wear a stupidly-grinning racial stereotype on our heads have an option. They did that before, with the script I.
This is probably the best thing that has happened to Roger Goodell since he became commissioner. He's so image concious that I'm sure he would like nothing more than for the Washington team to change their name but it's also clear that he doesn't want to get into a public confrontation with Snyder. The more pressure that gets applied on Snyder from outside sources the easier it will be for the league to eventually force a name change.
The Washington Post had a nice summary here - LINK. This seems to sum it up well enough:
"The ruling does not mean that the Redskins have to change the name of the team. It does affect whether the team and the NFL can make money from merchandising because it limits the team’s legal options when others use the logos and the name on T shirts, sweatshirts, beer glasses and license plate holders."
It also makes the distinction that this is indeed at the federal level, which as the OP mentions, does not prevent the team from seeking alternate protection.
The abovethelaw story linked above suggests that the alternative protections, ie getting civil courts to protect an unregistered trademark, are in all probability unwinnable.
Washington DC is all Federal.
Of course, FedEx Field itself is in Maryland so state protection could help them there, but stores in DC itself could sell without restriction.
While you are correct that Washington D.C. is a Federal District, that does not mean that a common law trademark would be unrecognized within the District. In other words, even without a registration in the USPTO, a mark used within the District could still be entitled to protection by virtue of its use.
All for it which way? For using the name, or getting rid of it?
I'm not one to be sensitive about these things, but it is a little foolish to have a racial slur as a team name that's located in our nations capital.
Thanks for also protecting patent trolls.
You can blame the PTO for granting too many overly broad and ambiguous patents (especially for software), but not for protecting patent trolls. You can thank congress and the E.D. Texas for that.
And people who defend it should feel bad.
This and other name controversies do nothing for those living in third world conditions on reservations.
Dan Snyder can cling on to the Redskins name as much as he wants but you can see how this one is trending.
Most NCAA teams with even vaguely offensive native american names had to change theirs. Its only a matter of time before a teams whose nickname is inherently racist will have to change theirs (Imagine San Francisco's team being called the "Yellowskins" with a Samurai's profile as the mascot)
Edit: Looks like someone on the internet had the same idea
So the Trademark Office gave the team a trademark 80 years ago, and then took it back?
Sounds like a bunch of indian givers to me.
So here's a question. A business can lose their TM if their name is offensive. But what about if their business is offensive to people? can they lose their TM for their name? Like Playboy, Penhouse etc..
The standard is whether it disparages people.
So is Hustler dispaging to women?
But the trademark isn't.
The name alone isn't. I'm saying that "Hustler" is not going to face the same fate as "Redskins" (as you suggested as a possibility).
I'm a life long redskins fan being from northern va....so I feel I have a say here in this argument..redskins name historically was used to honor Indians, not to be prejudiced against them...in fact, an native American of souix heritage recommended the name in the early 30s. Close this thread, I'm about to get political towards all these "tolerant" folk.
What if they kept the logo and mascot, but changed the team name to the Americans? I am sure the Right would find that offensive however....