Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
5 years ago I bought the official Glidden "Redskins burgundy" paint to use for my "mancave" in my first home. Good thing I sold that house last year, change is a comin'
Including all current team colors/uniforms/helmets and such? I think that's a great compromise for all involved.
Yup keep everything but the name Redskins. When the University of Miami (OH) changed from Redskins, they want to Redhawks, but also changed the logo.
The strange thing was that the Redmen name was based on their uniforms (I always believed at least) - their mascot (at games at least) wasn't even a native American type, it was a guy dressed in a red tuxedo and top hat. Maybe the origins stemmed from a native American imagery though - not really sure.BusterTBronco said:
My vote is Senators. The name already has history in the city and doubt many in the area would have a problem with bringing back the name.
what do you think the job of a patent office is exactly? It's not exactly congress.
Thats a really good outlook on this. As a 49er fan I would be super bummed if my team name was going to forced change. In the end there is nothing we as fans can do but roll with it.
This was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.
Can you believe that darn Patent and Trademark Office, flying off the handle and making decisions on patents and trademarks like it's their job?
Who do they think they are, government officials tasked with granting or denying federal legal protections for intellectual property in accordance with the law or something?
This, if it was such a problem why did they not reject the patent years ago?
It's not, though. Patent law explicitly states that racial slurs cannot be protected. That's one of the laws that the patent courts have been tasked with enforcing. It's one they've enforced a whole bunch of times in the past without triggering "slippery slope" arguments.This was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.
Can you believe that darn Patent and Trademark Office, flying off the handle and making decisions on patents and trademarks like it's their job?
Who do they think they are, government officials tasked with granting or denying federal legal protections for intellectual property in accordance with the law or something?
I don't think the name should be changed. You, obviously, believe that it should.
Either way, the end doesn't always justify the means.
This is a very slippery slope.
Well, it's not THAT offensive...
They did reject the patent years ago. Washington then appealed that decision, and that decision was tossed out not because it was wrong, but because of a legal technicality called "standing". Basically, a higher court said that the name might be racist (and therefore ineligible to be trademarked), but the guys who sued were too old to claim damages. So the entire suit had to be restarted with a younger set of plaintiffs.
If so, are we saying that the term is only a new racial slur, or that it wasn't a big enough deal until now to do something about it?It's not, though. Patent law explicitly states that racial slurs cannot be protected. That's one of the laws that the patent courts have been tasked with enforcing. It's one they've enforced a whole bunch of times in the past without triggering "slippery slope" arguments.This was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.
Can you believe that darn Patent and Trademark Office, flying off the handle and making decisions on patents and trademarks like it's their job?
Who do they think they are, government officials tasked with granting or denying federal legal protections for intellectual property in accordance with the law or something?
I don't think the name should be changed. You, obviously, believe that it should.
Either way, the end doesn't always justify the means.
This is a very slippery slope.
No, but hearing patent cases is certainly the most important thing for our patent courts to do.
So if it again takes 7 years to figure out, what happens in regards to the name between now and then? Can Danny boy still use it? Can the NFL or the Patent office or whomever force him to stop?
The interesting thing though is that as I read the law, in order to be cancelled the name had to be deemed offensive at the time it was registered, not using today's standards.It's not, though. Patent law explicitly states that racial slurs cannot be protected. That's one of the laws that the patent courts have been tasked with enforcing. It's one they've enforced a whole bunch of times in the past without triggering "slippery slope" arguments.This was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.
Can you believe that darn Patent and Trademark Office, flying off the handle and making decisions on patents and trademarks like it's their job?
Who do they think they are, government officials tasked with granting or denying federal legal protections for intellectual property in accordance with the law or something?
I don't think the name should be changed. You, obviously, believe that it should.
Either way, the end doesn't always justify the means.
This is a very slippery slope.
I have decided that I will from this day forth consider "Adam Harstad" to be a racial slur. It's offensive to me and has no place in a civilized society.It's not, though. Patent law explicitly states that racial slurs cannot be protected. That's one of the laws that the patent courts have been tasked with enforcing. It's one they've enforced a whole bunch of times in the past without triggering "slippery slope" arguments.This was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.
Can you believe that darn Patent and Trademark Office, flying off the handle and making decisions on patents and trademarks like it's their job?
Who do they think they are, government officials tasked with granting or denying federal legal protections for intellectual property in accordance with the law or something?
I don't think the name should be changed. You, obviously, believe that it should.
Either way, the end doesn't always justify the means.
This is a very slippery slope.
Who implied this is important?
Protests surrounding the name were ongoing back in the '70s. The trademark suit was first filed in 1992. Nobody was waiting until now to do something about it- they've been doing things about it for decades. It's just that Dan Snyder is very rich with a lot of well-paid lawyers capable of deploying every delaying tactic possible, so litigation takes years to resolve.
Well, it was addressed in 1992, but an appeal was successful on a technicality (reportedly; I don't know the details). Either way, this isn't a new issue. But, it certainly has gained traction in recent years, and Snyder's defiance/insensitivity only served to accelerate the final outcome, imo.
