As I understand it, the complaint isn't that the term is "offensive", but that it's "disparaging". Here's the USPTO decision for "Washington Redskins Potatoes"

As I understand it, the complaint isn't that the term is "offensive", but that it's "disparaging". Here's the USPTO decision for "Washington Redskins Potatoes" (quoting https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140319/11225326627/uspto-again-redskin-cant-be-trademarked-because-its-horribly-racist-term.shtml https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20140319/11225326627/uspto... ): > "Registration is refused because the applied-for mark includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols," the decision, handed down on March 17, says. It concludes: "Given that "REDSKIN" in the mark is a derogatory slang term that refers to, and is considered offensive by, American Indians, registration of the applied-for mark must be refused" under the Trademark Act, a 1946 law that prohibits the trademarking of offensive or derogatory terms. The examining attorney's decision cites dictionary definitions of the word "Redskins" that say it is "usually offensive" or "offensive slang," and it also notes that groups like the National Congress of American Indians and the Oneida Indian Nation regard the word as a disparaging slur. To my limited understanding, it appears that if the term "Viking" were a disparaging term, with a long history of being used that way, then the Minnesota Vikings could not trademark their name, even though the Norse are long dead, so cannot be offended.