7 ms·

U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

71 points by salimmadjd 12y ago

uptown 12y ago
An interesting visualization showing the land seized from Native Americans in the United States. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_...
- badman_ting 12y ago
  A more humorous look here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZr7ADxLff8#t=0m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZr7ADxLff8#t=0m38s
  - kingmanaz 12y ago
    And here: http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html
- ry0ohki 12y ago
  On the other hand, has any conquering nation ever set aside so much self managed land for the people it conquered?
  - scarmig 12y ago
    Do you have an example of this in mind? Thinking of colonizers... South Africa had much more land for the conquered, even during apartheid. Israel has set aside massive amounts of land to its previous inhabitants. Canada certainly has much more land set aside, though I expect it's equally marginal. More generally... Japan-SK Japan-Taiwan UK-India Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.
  - locopati 12y ago
    Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.
  - judk 12y ago
    Might does not make right. And modern people did not sign off on those conquerings.
    - ry0ohki 12y ago
      When do we decide what is right? The Sioux conquered Crow and took their lands, so who holds the right to South Dakota?
- cylinder 12y ago
  Why has there been no native title movement like there was in Australia?
bruceb 12y ago
According to Deadspin: The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all. One could imagine this having the perverse result of the team becoming more popular temporarily as now there is a bunch of cheap merchandise. I don't think it will come to that but it is slightly more likely than it was yesterday.
- apendleton 12y ago
  They would potentially become more popular, but they wouldn't get the revenue from that popularity, because the knockoff vendors wouldn't pay for the rights to the Redskins IP. Since merchandise is a major revenue stream for sports teams, it seems unlikely, were it to come to that, that the team would tolerate it for too long; they wouldn't really have any choice but to change their name to something that could be trademarked to recover their merchandise revenue.
  - bruceb 12y ago
    I do imagine they would change quickly if it came down to it. Though the market for "traditional" merch would be alive for a while.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
  Certainly if it is canceled, they'll be able to sell gear with the logo, but only that. Other styles and imagery will continue to be trademarked, will it not? For instance, you won't be able to sell a jersey with someone's number on it.
protomyth 12y ago
I'm not sure how to feel on this one. I doubt my dad (an enrolled member of one of the plains tribes) will be pleased as the Redskins are his favorite NFL team. If I was the Apache Foundation, I would be looking for another name.
- bitJericho 12y ago
  Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
  - protomyth 12y ago
    Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.
    - iterationx 12y ago
      For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.
      - kaonashi 12y ago
        I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.
        protomyth 12y ago
        Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.
Alupis 12y ago
For anyone not understanding what this is about, here's the most important part of the ruling: > > ...we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that > these registrations must be cancelled because they were > disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times > they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) > of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). > Seems like this ruling may lead to more... there are a lot of trademarks in the US that some party somewhere will take offense to.
- rayiner 12y ago
  Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark. A good example of this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_register_DOB_as_a_trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_... ("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term. McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot' in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations.") In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term, a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans. Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation proceedings for the trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Legal_and_regulatory_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro.... The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement. That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.
alexeisadeski3 12y ago
This is a bit ridiculous.
- prutschman 12y ago
  I agree. This should have happened years ago.
davehur 12y ago
I think the photography patent they recently granted to Amazon is much more offensive.
djim 12y ago
there are many native americans who support the use of this name. it honors them. it's perhaps the most "american" team in pro-football, next to their rivals, the cowboys. the name may genuinely offend some of native american origins. i doubt these folks happen to be fans of the team. not sure if that matters, just sayin. edit: want to add i am totally in favor of renaming the team. it would be cool to keep the spirit..perhaps the "native americans"?
- talmand 12y ago
  I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" "Native American" isn't the accepted term so much as one of the more commonly accepted terms. > considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America". Since Native Americans don't share a single pre-colonization language or name for the land, its not really surprising that one of the more broadly accepted blanket terms in English for the group is one that includes the name of the land in the English and a reference to Native Americans historical precedence in the land.
    - talmand 12y ago
      It seems to be the accepted term amongst the most vocal on the subject. I understand why the term exists, I just don't understand its usage.
      - neonhomer 12y ago
        I think it should be termed Precursor Americans. At least that defines that they were present before it was title America.
peg_leg 12y ago
They should change their image to one of a peanut. Problem solved.
- talmand 12y ago
  Or potato perhaps.
dmaz 12y ago
Response: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trademark-Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trade...
dec0dedab0de 12y ago
I always liked this song, which is relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU
CtrlAltDel 12y ago
This is a great victory. Now anyone can legally use the term Redskins, not just the football team.
deancognation 12y ago
This has been ruled on previously.....and previously overturned. So much for the trademarks office being a non-political office - https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/10152309302229221 https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/101523093022...
- TheCoelacanth 12y ago
  It was overturned the first time because of laches, i.e. that the plaintiff had waited too long to bring the case. This time the plaintiff is someone who only recently turned 18, which negates the laches issue.

71 points by salimmadjd 12y ago

An interesting visualization showing the land seized from Native Americans in the United States. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_...

badman_ting 12y ago
A more humorous look here. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZr7ADxLff8#t=0m38s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZr7ADxLff8#t=0m38s
- kingmanaz 12y ago
  And here: http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html http://twain.lib.virginia.edu/projects/rissetto/redman.html
ry0ohki 12y ago
On the other hand, has any conquering nation ever set aside so much self managed land for the people it conquered?
- scarmig 12y ago
  Do you have an example of this in mind? Thinking of colonizers... South Africa had much more land for the conquered, even during apartheid. Israel has set aside massive amounts of land to its previous inhabitants. Canada certainly has much more land set aside, though I expect it's equally marginal. More generally... Japan-SK Japan-Taiwan UK-India Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.
- locopati 12y ago
  Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.
- judk 12y ago
  Might does not make right. And modern people did not sign off on those conquerings.
  - ry0ohki 12y ago
    When do we decide what is right? The Sioux conquered Crow and took their lands, so who holds the right to South Dakota?
cylinder 12y ago
Why has there been no native title movement like there was in Australia?

bruceb 12y ago

According to Deadspin: The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all. One could imagine this having the perverse result of the team becoming more popular temporarily as now there is a bunch of cheap merchandise. I don't think it will come to that but it is slightly more likely than it was yesterday.

apendleton 12y ago
They would potentially become more popular, but they wouldn't get the revenue from that popularity, because the knockoff vendors wouldn't pay for the rights to the Redskins IP. Since merchandise is a major revenue stream for sports teams, it seems unlikely, were it to come to that, that the team would tolerate it for too long; they wouldn't really have any choice but to change their name to something that could be trademarked to recover their merchandise revenue.
- bruceb 12y ago
  I do imagine they would change quickly if it came down to it. Though the market for "traditional" merch would be alive for a while.
NoMoreNicksLeft 12y ago
Certainly if it is canceled, they'll be able to sell gear with the logo, but only that. Other styles and imagery will continue to be trademarked, will it not? For instance, you won't be able to sell a jersey with someone's number on it.

protomyth 12y ago

I'm not sure how to feel on this one. I doubt my dad (an enrolled member of one of the plains tribes) will be pleased as the Redskins are his favorite NFL team. If I was the Apache Foundation, I would be looking for another name.

bitJericho 12y ago
Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)
- protomyth 12y ago
  Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.
  - iterationx 12y ago
    For some reason, liberals like to be offended on behalf of other groups.
    - kaonashi 12y ago
      I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.
      - protomyth 12y ago
        Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.

Alupis 12y ago

For anyone not understanding what this is about, here's the most important part of the ruling: > > ...we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that > these registrations must be cancelled because they were > disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times > they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) > of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). > Seems like this ruling may lead to more... there are a lot of trademarks in the US that some party somewhere will take offense to.

rayiner 12y ago
Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark. A good example of this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_register_DOB_as_a_trademark http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_... ("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term. McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot' in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations.") In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term, a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans. Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation proceedings for the trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Legal_and_regulatory_action http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro.... The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement. That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.

alexeisadeski3 12y ago

This is a bit ridiculous.

prutschman 12y ago
I agree. This should have happened years ago.

davehur 12y ago

I think the photography patent they recently granted to Amazon is much more offensive.

djim 12y ago

there are many native americans who support the use of this name. it honors them. it's perhaps the most "american" team in pro-football, next to their rivals, the cowboys. the name may genuinely offend some of native american origins. i doubt these folks happen to be fans of the team. not sure if that matters, just sayin. edit: want to add i am totally in favor of renaming the team. it would be cool to keep the spirit..perhaps the "native americans"?

talmand 12y ago
I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" "Native American" isn't the accepted term so much as one of the more commonly accepted terms. > considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America". Since Native Americans don't share a single pre-colonization language or name for the land, its not really surprising that one of the more broadly accepted blanket terms in English for the group is one that includes the name of the land in the English and a reference to Native Americans historical precedence in the land.
  - talmand 12y ago
    It seems to be the accepted term amongst the most vocal on the subject. I understand why the term exists, I just don't understand its usage.
    - neonhomer 12y ago
      I think it should be termed Precursor Americans. At least that defines that they were present before it was title America.

peg_leg 12y ago

They should change their image to one of a peanut. Problem solved.

talmand 12y ago
Or potato perhaps.

dmaz 12y ago

Response: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trademark-Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trade...

dec0dedab0de 12y ago

I always liked this song, which is relevant. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU

CtrlAltDel 12y ago

This is a great victory. Now anyone can legally use the term Redskins, not just the football team.

deancognation 12y ago

This has been ruled on previously.....and previously overturned. So much for the trademarks office being a non-political office - https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/10152309302229221 https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/101523093022...

TheCoelacanth 12y ago
It was overturned the first time because of laches, i.e. that the plaintiff had waited too long to bring the case. This time the plaintiff is someone who only recently turned 18, which negates the laches issue.