Washington Redskins Trademark Canceled

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**MrDwhitey**

pretre wrote:

Again, educate yourself on the issue before spouting drek.

They also suffer from a lack of the former and a lot of the latter.

**pretre**

MrDwhitey wrote:
pretre wrote:

Again, educate yourself on the issue before spouting drek.

They also suffer from a lack of the former and a lot of the latter.

Who is 'they'?

**hotsauceman1**

text removed.

reds8n

**whembly**

It'll be appealed... until then the trademark is still valid.

**Kid_Kyoto**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Yay, Govt censorship.

Nope, withdrawl of government protection of a trademark.

Totally different. The team can keep using the name, but now so can anyone else. Ironically that's the opposite of the plantiff's goal but there you go.

Since it makes the name commerically worthless there will now be real pressure to change it.

May I suggest in honor of Congress' decades of prudent spending, and in the interest of saving the cost of relettering all those signs, how about the Washington Red Inks?

**d-usa**

No.

It's the government saying that the Redskins cannot censor other people.

So again, the exact opposite of censorship.

**pretre**

Oh my. You really don't get it.

Trademarks are a service that the government provides to businesses that tells people what they can or can't do. The government actually did the opposite of what you are saying. They withdrew the trademark. That is less government interference, not more.

**Kid_Kyoto**

LuciusAR wrote:
Can patents really be refused (or cancelled) on the grounds of potentially causing 'offense'? Sounds rather dodgy to me.

Trademark not a patent, and yes under US law at least.

**d-usa**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:

May I suggest in honor of Congress' decades of prudent spending, and in the interest of saving the cost of relettering all those signs, how about the Washington Red Inks?

**pretre**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
how about the Washington Red Inks?

Seconded!

**Kid_Kyoto**

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Really? With all the hoopla about the Redskins name right now, the US patent office suddenly decides to cancel the patent and that doesnt sound the tiniest fishy??

No, they cancelled it because someone sued the team and won their case. It was not 'suddenly', the team had its day in court and lost.

they also lost in 1999 but got it overturned on a technicality.

Did you even read the article?

**whembly**

d-usa wrote:
Kid_Kyoto wrote:

May I suggest in honor of Congress' decades of prudent spending, and in the interest of saving the cost of relettering all those signs, how about the Washington Red Inks?

Washington Parasites?
Washington Cronies?

**hotsauceman1**

So now, if the Redskins want to remain profitable with selling merchindise they have to change their name. It is roundabout censorship. They cant go after those who sell cheap knockoffs anymore.

**reds8n**

If we can NOT insult, swear at etc etc other users moving forwards please.

Thank you.

**pretre**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
So now, if the Redskins want to remain profitable with selling merchindise they have to change their name. It is roundabout censorship. They cant go after those who sell cheap knockoffs anymore.

At least you're getting closer to a legitimate gripe.

Still about a mile off though. Keep refining.

**d-usa**

It's censorship because people can't censor people anymore!!!

**hotsauceman1**

pretre wrote:
hotsauceman1 wrote:
So now, if the Redskins want to remain profitable with selling merchindise they have to change their name. It is roundabout censorship. They cant go after those who sell cheap knockoffs anymore.

At least you're getting closer to a legitimate gripe.

Still about a mile off though. Keep refining.

Ok, If a review board can say what people can and cannots use as a team name, as part of a private endeavor and a team owned privately. It is wrong. The native americans said that its offends them....cool, but dont force it onto others. I have friend who hate the N-word, but isnt going fter NWA because it is their right. When you start forcing the government to police private entities to do something beause it is offensive then you re getting into bad territory.

**MrDwhitey**

d-usa wrote:

It's censorship because people can't censor people anymore!!!

It sounds like a victory for the free market to me!

**Kid_Kyoto**

5 minutes after I post here I start getting ads for trademark registration services.

Hurray internets!

Still getting ads from that one time I looked at a crib a year ago.

Anyway I guess it's time for me to open that Official Washington Redskins Sushi and Bait Shop I've always dreamed of.

**pretre**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
Ok, If a review board can say what people can and cannots use as a team name, as part of a private endeavor and a team owned privately. It is wrong. The native americans said that its offends them....cool, but dont force it onto others. I have friend who hate the N-word, but isnt going fter NWA because it is their right. When you start forcing the government to police private entities to do something beause it is offensive then you re getting into bad territory.

They haven't said what you can and can't use for a team name. That would be the actual League that does that.

The Trademark office has simply enforced their own rules.

The USPTO will also refuse registration of a proposed mark for many other reasons, including but
not limited to the mark being: a surname; geographically descriptive of the origin of the goods/
services; disparaging or offensive; a foreign term that translates to a descriptive or generic term; an
individual’s name or likeness; the title of a single book and/or movie; and matter that is used in a
purely ornamental manner.

http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/basics/BasicFacts.pdf

If you don't like the way they enforce them, you don't have to have trademark protection.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
Anyway I guess it's time for me to open that Official Washington Redskins Sushi and Bait Shop I've always dreamed of.

GOVERNMENT CENSORSHIP!

**DarkTraveler777**

Someone needs to open a restaurant that sells potatoes, and potato-based products. Like a wing shop, but with fries and such. The place could be called Washington Red Skins and they can specialize in serving up that particular kind of spud. It would be glorious.

**Hlaine Larkin mk2**

Morathi's Darkest Sin wrote:So, do we think this will spur Washington on to get a name change?

I can't see it happening voluntarily as long as Snyder's still the owner, he's convinced himself it's not racist and the only opinion he cares about apart from his own is RGIII's (Talk about a man crush)

**MrDwhitey**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Someone needs to open a restaurant that sells potatoes, and potato-based products. Like a wing shop, but with fries and such. The place could be called Washington Red Skins and they can specialize in serving up that particular kind of spud. It would be glorious.

**d-usa**

Let's just break down the amount of your misunderstanding of the situation.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Ok, If a review board can say what people can and cannots use as a team name, as part of a private endeavor and a team owned privately. It is wrong.

Except that is not what is happening. Nobody said "you cannot have that team name". Nobody said "you can only operate if you change your name". What was said is "You no longer have a government granted exclusive use of that name in sports."

Because that is what a trademark is. It's not an approval of a brand name. It's the granting of exclusive use of a brand name.

Nothing about this decision has anything to do with the government forcing them to change a name or saying that they can no longer use it.

The native americans said that its offends them....cool, but dont force it onto others. I have friend who hate the N-word, but isnt going fter NWA because it is their right.

The Trademark office has it's own set of rules. Including not being able to grant a Trademark that "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt,". By their own rules this should have never been a trademark to begin with.

The NWA, while offensive, doesn't actually fall into that.

When you start forcing the government to police private entities to do something beause it is offensive then you re getting into bad territory.

The government isn't policing anyone.

In fact, private entities and individuals were policing the government in this case and prevented censorship by invalidating a trademark which was granted in violation of the rules that govern the office which granted it.

**Kid_Kyoto**

DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Someone needs to open a restaurant that sells potatoes, and potato-based products. Like a wing shop, but with fries and such. The place could be called Washington Red Skins and they can specialize in serving up that particular kind of spud. It would be glorious.

I love it.

Do you need investors?

**d-usa**

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
5 minutes after I post here I start getting ads for trademark registration services.

Hurray internets!

Still getting ads from that one time I looked at a crib a year ago.

I was using one of the computers at work and had ads for "Semen Tanks".

Turns the guy in the previous shift was doing some searches for his farm business and it's a legitimate non-perv thing. But it was still pretty shocking!

Automatically Appended Next Post:

MrDwhitey wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Someone needs to open a restaurant that sells potatoes, and potato-based products. Like a wing shop, but with fries and such. The place could be called Washington Red Skins and they can specialize in serving up that particular kind of spud. It would be glorious.

**DarkTraveler777**

MrDwhitey wrote:
DarkTraveler777 wrote:
Someone needs to open a restaurant that sells potatoes, and potato-based products. Like a wing shop, but with fries and such. The place could be called Washington Red Skins and they can specialize in serving up that particular kind of spud. It would be glorious.

Wonderful!

Kid_Kyoto wrote:
[

I love it.

Do you need investors?

Yes, in fact. Let's get this ball rolling!

**hotsauceman1**

d-usa wrote:
Let's just break down the amount of your misunderstanding of the situation.

hotsauceman1 wrote:

Ok, If a review board can say what people can and cannots use as a team name, as part of a private endeavor and a team owned privately. It is wrong.

Except that is not what is happening. Nobody said "you cannot have that team name". Nobody said "you can only operate if you change your name". What was said is "You no longer have a government granted exclusive use of that name in sports."

Because that is what a trademark is. It's not an approval of a brand name. It's the granting of exclusive use of a brand name.

Nothing about this decision has anything to do with the government forcing them to change a name or saying that they can no longer use it.

The native americans said that its offends them....cool, but dont force it onto others. I have friend who hate the N-word, but isnt going fter NWA because it is their right.

The Trademark office has it's own set of rules. Including not being able to grant a Trademark that "consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt,". By their own rules this should have never been a trademark to begin with.

The NWA, while offensive, doesn't actually fall into that.

When you start forcing the government to police private entities to do something beause it is offensive then you re getting into bad territory.

The government isn't policing anyone.

In fact, private entities and individuals were policing the government in this case and prevented censorship by invalidating a trademark which was granted in violation of the rules that govern the office which granted it.

I disagree, by disallowing the trademark, they for forcing the team, if they want to continue to sell merch, to change their name.

**MrDwhitey**

They still can sell the real super duper official merch.

Others can just sell bootlegs. The free market works!

**pretre**

hotsauceman1 wrote:
I disagree, by disallowing the trademark, they for forcing the team, if they want to continue to sell merch, to change their name.

Except for the part where someone already said the owner is unlikely to change the name. Keep pounding that drum though.