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.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:

 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.

No they don't, people already make low-quality rip-offs
If you think a franchise is wholly reliant upon merchandising for income then you're wrong

 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.

You can disagree all you want. That doesn't make you right.

Nothing about this decision prevents the Washington Redskins from selling whatever they want with the name Washington Redskins on it.

I know when Im defeated. With all the insults thrown at me in this thread, Im done.

You were the guy cursing at other folks for pointing out your mistakes, hotsauce. It actually doesn't hurt to admit that you didn't know everything and your initial opinion might have been misplaced.

 hotsauceman1 wrote:
I know when Im defeated. With all the insults thrown at me in this thread, Im done.

Did Yakface censor you by not giving you an exclusive right to post?

I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Here is the official response from the team's Trademark Attorney: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trademark-Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf

They retain the trademark and will appeal the decision (again) and will most likely win the appeal (again) and continue to retain the trademark (again).

Even if they lose their appeal (and I don't think they will), Dan Snyder has gone on record numerous times that he has no plans to change the name of the team, with or without a trademark in place.

 daedalus wrote:
I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing,

There are actually a whole bunch of misconceptions in this thread.

First, trademark law is founded in consumer protection law; it is intended to ensure that a consumer is not misled or otherwise tricked into obtaining a good or service other than what he thought he was obtaining. Trademarks are meant to uniquely identify the provider of a good or service. Secondarily, there are some unfair competition implications (mostly involving unfairly profiting by trading on someone else's goodwill through confusingly similar marks).

Second, U.S. federal trademark law (the Lanham Act) provides certain rights to registered trademark holders; the USPTO (emphasis on "T" here) has further expanded on the bare language of the act, as is usually proper for an administrative agency.

Third, Lanham Act protections are not the sole remedy for trademark infringement. If you don't have a federally registered trademark, you lose the protections of the Lanham Act...but you still have access to a wide range of consumer protection & unfair competition law. I wouldn't start up your potato business just yet.

And we haven't touched on common law trademark or state trademark law at all. Basically, anytime you see a US company use "TM" after some word, it's an indication that they are claiming that as a trademark, but haven't received a federal trademark registration (yet); registered trademarks are indicated with the circle-R (R).

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Even if they lose their appeal (and I don't think they will), Dan Snyder has gone on record numerous times that he has no plans to change the name of the team, with or without a trademark in place.

I don't think he would change it even if he couldn't enforce any kind of trademark.

I do wonder if the NFL would have some kind of power to force him to change it though. If an individual team lacks a trademark it would seem that it might impact their franchise agreement (or whatever it is called) with the NFL.

 curran12 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing,

Maybe in this case, but it's not the only situation I've heard of teams with Native American based names getting changed/protections revoked. It's just the first time I know of that it happened to a team that wasn't a high school team.

You suggest that if they were named the Cherokees or something like that, it'd be okay?

 daedalus wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing,

Maybe in this case, but it's not the only situation I've heard of teams with Native American based names getting changed/protections revoked. It's just the first time I know of that it happened to a team that wasn't a high school team.

You suggest that if they were named the Cherokees or something like that, it'd be okay?

It would be a lot better than the Redskins.

 daedalus wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing,

Maybe in this case, but it's not the only situation I've heard of teams with Native American based names getting changed/protections revoked. It's just the first time I know of that it happened to a team that wasn't a high school team.

You suggest that if they were named the Cherokees or something like that, it'd be okay?

You got it in one.

Redskin isn't a tribe's name or anything. The name has only ever existed as a derogatory insult. Cherokee, or any other tribal name is clearly not one of those and is quite fine.

 pretre wrote:

 daedalus wrote:

 curran12 wrote:

 daedalus wrote:
I've never understood how such a thing is an insult anyway. If you're naming yourselves after something else, I would think it to be a tribute, unless done ironically.

I mean, you don't see teams being named the Chickens or the Dandelions or the Sillynannies. (well, maybe the last one) They're usually named after great, majestic, or powerful things like bears and lions and kings and wizards and gak.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing,

Maybe in this case, but it's not the only situation I've heard of teams with Native American based names getting changed/protections revoked. It's just the first time I know of that it happened to a team that wasn't a high school team.

You suggest that if they were named the Cherokees or something like that, it'd be okay?

It would be a lot better than the Redskins.

Which brings us back to the "Blackhawks".

Well, Blackhawk isn't actually a tribal name as far as I can tell. It is from the Sauk tribe's leader from the 1800s. While he was a war leader, he also left a pretty enduring legacy as one of the first Native Americans to publish an autobiography.

The name Blackhawk has been passed around as team and school names, even a few military units go by the name (which is where the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks took the name), it is not a derogatory term, however. At least as far as I can tell.

 d-usa wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Even if they lose their appeal (and I don't think they will), Dan Snyder has gone on record numerous times that he has no plans to change the name of the team, with or without a trademark in place.

I don't think he would change it even if he couldn't enforce any kind of trademark.

I do wonder if the NFL would have some kind of power to force him to change it though. If an individual team lacks a trademark it would seem that it might impact their franchise agreement (or whatever it is called) with the NFL.

As of now, the NFL has stood behind Dan Synder and the team so I doubt very seriously that they would force him in to changing the name, which I don't believe they can anyway.

Because "redskin" is a racial slur, a derogatory term. I mean, this isn't a complex thing

Actually, the term "redskin" has a fairly complex history: http://www.slate.com/blogs/lexicon_valley/2013/12/18/redskins_the_debate_over_the_washington_football_team_s_name_incorrectly.html

 curran12 wrote:
Well, Blackhawk isn't actually a tribal name as far as I can tell. It is from the Sauk tribe's leader from the 1800s. While he was a war leader, he also left a pretty enduring legacy as one of the first Native Americans to publish an autobiography.

The name Blackhawk has been passed around as team and school names, even a few military units go by the name (which is where the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks took the name), it is not a derogatory term, however. At least as far as I can tell.

I did mean to post it as a "when are terms okay" name.

I think I mentioned earlier that you people can still talk about Blackhawks or Cherokees being a form of cultural appropriation, and some people do take issue with that. But it wouldn't be a case of racism or being a derogatory name.

Soooooo...what's the replacement?

I vote for 'Federals'.




I'm dating myself with that reference, aren't I?

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

 d-usa wrote:

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Even if they lose their appeal (and I don't think they will), Dan Snyder has gone on record numerous times that he has no plans to change the name of the team, with or without a trademark in place.

I don't think he would change it even if he couldn't enforce any kind of trademark.

I do wonder if the NFL would have some kind of power to force him to change it though. If an individual team lacks a trademark it would seem that it might impact their franchise agreement (or whatever it is called) with the NFL.

As of now, the NFL has stood behind Dan Synder and the team so I doubt vary seriously that they would force him in to changing the name, which I don't believe they can anyway.

I know that they can't force him to change a name simply because they might not like it.

I just didn't know if there was some kind of clause that would force the Redskins to have a name that can be trademarked for business purposes.

Any idea what they will change their name to?

I think they should adopt a more multicultural name, perhaps taking inspiration from all skin tones; white, brown, yellow & red.

The Washington Fourskins.

I'm sorry.

Perhaps we should name and identify teams solely by the colors of their socks.

 curran12 wrote:
Well, Blackhawk isn't actually a tribal name as far as I can tell. It is from the Sauk tribe's leader from the 1800s. While he was a war leader, he also left a pretty enduring legacy as one of the first Native Americans to publish an autobiography.

The name Blackhawk has been passed around as team and school names, even a few military units go by the name (which is where the owner of the Chicago Blackhawks took the name), it is not a derogatory term, however. At least as far as I can tell.

Its not. Army Aviation Aircrafts class are named after Native American tribes

Blackhawk though till now I thought was a tribe. I can see why the UH60 is now named after an individual.
Kiowa Warrior is a up gunned OU-58
Apache the AH-64
Iroquois the UH1 or "Huey"
Commanche was the "stealth" AH
etc

 gorgon wrote:
Soooooo...what's the replacement?

I vote for 'Federals'.




I'm dating myself with that reference, aren't I?

Yup.

I like "The Washington Warriors".
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/washington-redskins-top-five-recommendations-name-143100765.html

 daedalus wrote:


Maybe in this case, but it's not the only situation I've heard of teams with Native American based names getting changed/protections revoked. It's just the first time I know of that it happened to a team that wasn't a high school team.

You suggest that if they were named the Cherokees or something like that, it'd be okay?

In NY Saint John's University changed from the Redmen to the Red Storm, I think for similar reasons.

In DC the Bullets became the Wizards at a time when gun deaths made DC the murder capital of America.

So yes teams voluntarily change names all the time when a word aquires unpleasent connotations.

I've seen commentators say that there should be no American Indian sport team names, but they seem a small minority. And I've never heard anyone raise issues with say, the Minnesota Vikings or Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

No it seems the Redskins were a uniquely offensive choice and the pressure has been on them for literally decades.

Hail to the Red Inks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Medium of Death wrote:
Any idea what they will change their name to?

I think they should adopt a more multicultural name, perhaps taking inspiration from all skin tones; white, brown, yellow & red.

The Washington Fourskins.

I'm sorry.

Have an exault.

I just am coming back to say I am sorry for how I acted in this thread, I should not have lashed out at some of the member here like I did. I am just tired of being insulted on this forum

interesting take on ESPN:

Snyder's refusal to change the name can now financially hurt every other team since all teams (except the Cowboys) split the merchandising income. If the NFL and the Redskins cannot enforce the trademark, then every knockoff shirt sold is lost income for every other team.

 Kid_Kyoto wrote:

I've seen commentators say that there should be no American Indian sport team names, but they seem a small minority. And I've never heard anyone raise issues with say, the Minnesota Vikings or Notre Dame Fighting Irish.

A few people try to compare names like Redskin or Indian to the Fighting Irish, which is a particualry odious red herring.

Fighting Irish has always been a complementary lable, and was officially adopted by the University in part due to Father William Corby, an early ND president who had earlier served as chaplain of the Irish Brigade in the Civil War.

OT bit snipped. Let's stick to the topic now. --Janthkin

OT bit snipped. Let's stick to the topic now. --Janthkin

Snyder drew the proverbial line in the sand some time ago. I don't think he will willingly change the team name short of him being threatened with the loss of his team.

 d-usa wrote:
interesting take on ESPN:

Snyder's refusal to change the name can now financially hurt every other team since all teams (except the Cowboys) split the merchandising income. If the NFL and the Redskins cannot enforce the trademark, then every knockoff shirt sold is lost income for every other team.

...and this might prompt the other owners and/or league to take action.


Edit: Sorry about the off-topic. New to the thread, here...

Sell and move the team along with name change.