US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark (1 Viewer)

[biju]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Not that it really matters, since you shouldn't need a majority of a group being offended to justify the relatively simple and harmless act of changing a sports team name, but the bolded is wrong.

Congratulations, you've just attempted to disprove an inaccurate poll with another inaccurate poll. The first used a sample size of less than 1000, the second less than 500. According to the last census there are 2.9 million native Americans of pure blood in the US and over 5 million of mixed race. If you think your poll is accurate and indicative of all native Americans than I have a wonderful piece of real estate for you to purchase. Don't worry, 2 out of 3 people say it's fabulous.

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp

 

[Catbird]

First, I am not Native American or one of those feeling personally offended by the name, so its not about me and I don't think my opinion on how offensive the name is matters. It seems that's for those more directly touched by it to decide. I did live and work on a reservation, though, and so may have more perspective than some.

I do wonder, in situations like this, how the opinions of those (here Native Americans) who are proud of the mascot name and its historic use and who would like its use to continue fit in or are counted. It would be interesting to me (and probably enlightening to the whole situation) to see a counting that included people of native origin (maybe those on tribal registers?) who feel offended by the name, those who feel proud of the name and those who don't care one way or the other about its use. How those numbers broke down would go a long way to determining how I felt about its continuing use. I suspect that will never be done though, partly because the effort would be huge, but also because I suspect those who feel offended probably wouldn't want that count to be compiled.

 

[mightyeskimo]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Not that it really matters, since you shouldn't need a majority of a group being offended to justify the relatively simple and harmless act of changing a sports team name, but the bolded is wrong.

I could also write some equations to infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a Web page but, ultimately, it would still be incorrect.

Congratulations, you've just attempted to disprove an inaccurate poll with another inaccurate poll. The first used a sample size of less than 1000, the second less than 500. According to the last census there are 2.9 million native Americans of pure blood in the US and over 5 million of mixed race. If you think your poll is accurate and indicative of all native Americans than I have a wonderful piece of real estate for you to purchase. Don't worry, 2 out of 3 people say it's fabulous.

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Agreed 100%. In fact, there is a high school in Arizona on a Native American reservation. Wanna know their mascot? The Redskins. The Red Mesa Redskins. Why would a group of people name a team after a slur of themselves?

why do blacks always call themselves '#####'?

 

[Bronco Billy]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Agreed 100%. In fact, there is a high school in Arizona on a Native American reservation. Wanna know their mascot? The Redskins. The Red Mesa Redskins. Why would a group of people name a team after a slur of themselves?

And the principal of that high school said that use of the word outside American Indian communities should be avoided because it could perpetuate the legacy of negativity that the term has created.

And I could show you hundreds of quotes that say Native Americans also have no problem with the name. It's ridiculous in this PC world that we're telling people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. The majority of Native Americans have no issue with the team name.

By not changing it, isn't Snyder (and now you) telling those that have expressly stated that they are offended by it, that they shouldn't be?

So our goal in now to not offend anyone? I find that notion offensive.

 

[biju]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Not that it really matters, since you shouldn't need a majority of a group being offended to justify the relatively simple and harmless act of changing a sports team name, but the bolded is wrong.

I could also write some equations to infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a Web page but, ultimately, it would still be incorrect.

Congratulations, you've just attempted to disprove an inaccurate poll with another inaccurate poll. The first used a sample size of less than 1000, the second less than 500. According to the last census there are 2.9 million native Americans of pure blood in the US and over 5 million of mixed race. If you think your poll is accurate and indicative of all native Americans than I have a wonderful piece of real estate for you to purchase. Don't worry, 2 out of 3 people say it's fabulous.

You might want to take a look at this:

http://www.custominsight.com/articles/random-sample-calculator.asp

If you simply google "Survey Random Sample Calculator" and type in the numbers you'll find they aren't all the same but they are effectively close and certainly less than 1,000 for a solid margin of error. You don't need 100% participation to get close to the right answer.

 

[mightyeskimo]

I could also write some equations that infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a website but, ultimately, would still be inaccurate.

 

[MattFancy]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Agreed 100%. In fact, there is a high school in Arizona on a Native American reservation. Wanna know their mascot? The Redskins. The Red Mesa Redskins. Why would a group of people name a team after a slur of themselves?

why do blacks always call themselves '#####'?

Guess you'd have to ask them?

 

[hammerva]

They Skins only have themselves to blame for this issue. This has been a controversy since at least the 70's but it was a smaller issue that was completely ignored by the team. But as the number of native Americans complaining increased the team still ignored the issue. Then Dan Synder couldn't keep his mouth shut and it has been a problem ever since. This team is a public relations nightmare when it comes to crisis management

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

So this is what the most important thing for our government to do? I know every generation says it but we seriously are a big turd streaking around a toilet bowl.

The patent office making a decision on a patent? - the horror.

This is a trademark issue, not a patent issue. :nitpick:

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Yup keep everything but the name Redskins.

They could adopt a fighting potato for a mascot and keep their name and colors?

Right. I'd go the opposite way from MattFancy. Keep the name. Change the logo.

 

[LawFitz]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

 

[matttyl]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

Didn't they lose the trademark to both the name Redskins as well as the logo itself, claiming that both were derogatory?

EDIT - apparently a total of 6 trademarks were canceled. I'm assuming the name, the logo.....what are the other 4?

 

[Bronco Billy]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

Nope. Too offensive. Marquette used to be the Warriors but because that affected the sensitivities of some are now the Golden Eagles.

 

[jonboltz]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

Nope. Too offensive. Marquette used to be the Warriors but because that affected the sensitivities of some are now the Golden Eagles.

Marquette wasn't forced to change their nickname.

 

[Adam Harstad]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Not that it really matters, since you shouldn't need a majority of a group being offended to justify the relatively simple and harmless act of changing a sports team name, but the bolded is wrong.

Honestly, there are flaws with that survey just like there are flaws with the one that's showing only 10% of Native Americans are offended by the name. By drawing your sample exclusively from those who have a high level of involvement in tribal matters, you're going to get major selection bias problems. Similarly, by polling via landlines and relying entirely on self-reports, you're also going to get major selection bias problems, as Americans overreport Native American ancestry and a disproportionately large percentage of the Native American population doesn't have a landline. And, of course, the question used in the 2004 survey is absolute garbage, presenting two non-opposing possibilities.

I think the best we can say based on the two surveys is that somewhere between 10% and 67% of Native Americans are offended by the team name. The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I could also write some equations that infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a website but, ultimately, would still be inaccurate.

So you're rejecting the very concept of statistical inference?

 

[matttyl]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

 

[cloppbeast]

Generation ago, Europeans took all the land and recourses in North America they wanted. What is left of Native American tribes sit on useless western plots rebuffed by Americans. Our ancestors completely destroyed their culture, in the process causing much misery and death.

And this offends Native Americans?

I'll never understand it.

 

[Noah Davis]

Since when was the Patent Office appointed as a political organization? Move over, EPA and IRS.

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 was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.

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.

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.

If that's the case then can I petition Nabisco to stop using the word cracker because I find the word offensive as a white middle-aged middle class individual?

They could just change the name to Washington Rednecks....as there are no protections for offensive names for individuals of the Caucasian persuasion.

 

[Dismattle]

What about the Washington Reds Kins?

Im not exactly so sure that you was being legit But...

I believe the name Reds Kins is justification to question why any "patent" Office has reason to do anything more than track Trademarks. (1st Amendment and all)

 

[Bronco Billy]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

Nope. Too offensive. Marquette used to be the Warriors but because that affected the sensitivities of some are now the Golden Eagles.

Marquette wasn't forced to change their nickname.

No. They bowed to a few who chose to be offended.

 

[cstu]

How about keep the name and change the logo to a tomato?

 

[mightyeskimo]

I could also write some equations that infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a website but, ultimately, would still be inaccurate.

So you're rejecting the very concept of statistical inference?

No. Simply trying to point out the flaws inherent to the use of inference. The old adage that "you can make statistics say anything you want" is very much true. So true, in fact, that we will probably never know just how many native Americans, out of the entire US population, are actually for or against this change.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

Proving whether something is a racial slur in court, I believe, has nothing to do with how many people find it offensive.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

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.

If that's the case then can I petition Nabisco to stop using the word cracker because I find the word offensive as a white middle-aged middle class individual?

You can petition anybody for anything, but I'm pretty sure Nabisco hasn't trademarked the word cracker.

 

[Noah Davis]

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.

If that's the case then can I petition Nabisco to stop using the word cracker because I find the word offensive as a white middle-aged middle class individual?

You can petition anybody for anything, but I'm pretty sure Nabisco hasn't trademarked the word cracker.

Fair point. Made me laugh thanks!

 

[Adam Harstad]

Since when was the Patent Office appointed as a political organization? Move over, EPA and IRS.

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 was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.

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.

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.

If that's the case then can I petition Nabisco to stop using the word cracker because I find the word offensive as a white middle-aged middle class individual?

They could just change the name to Washington Rednecks....as there are no protections for offensive names for individuals of the Caucasian persuasion.

1) No, you cannot sue Nabisco to stop using the term "cracker", because cracker is not a federally registered trademark. If it were, then you could, although you would need more evidence than "I find the word offensive". I'm not saying that such evidence couldn't be mustered, I'm just saying, it's a very long and involved process. Legal battles over the Redskins name have taken more than two decades.

2) There are absolutely "protections for offensive names for individuals of Caucasian persuasion." They're the exact same protections that Native Americans just took advantage to have the Redskins trademark struck down. If Washington named their football team the Washington Rednecks, you could absolutely sue to have the trademark revoked. I think you'd have a pretty strong case, too.

 

[Bojang0301]

I don't see why the name couldn't be chaged to a local tribe, keep the colors and then have a logo similar to MattFancy or just keep the logo. I can understand if Indians find the name offensive, I still do not like the government making it a huge point of interest lately with all the problems piling up on the US. Dan Snyder has sort of a reputation of thumbing his nose at critics, I expect this to be the same but there is a classy way to move to a new name and still keep the hertige of the team without going all Washington Wizards on it.

 

[BaBastage]

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.

So I guess it wasn't a racial slur last year? This is PC strongarming. To think otherwise is disingenuous.

The courts ruled back in 1999 that it was a racial slur.

Why wasn't this decision issued last year if it was a racial slur last year? Because the legal process is very involved and takes a long time to play out.

Plus, terms that fit the definition of racial slurs change over time, as society changes, in relationship to "the norm".

I'm pretty sure that a lot of terms used 100+ years ago to describe anyone non-white (and a few white ethnicities as well) were perfectly accepted back then and are not even close to acceptable today.

 

[BaBastage]

Adam's teaching one hell of a lesson in this thread... but to some dull students.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I could also write some equations that infer that the guy next to me is a muppet. The math would be correct and it would look great on a website but, ultimately, would still be inaccurate.

So you're rejecting the very concept of statistical inference?

No. Simply trying to point out the flaws inherent to the use of inference. The old adage that "you can make statistics say anything you want" is very much true. So true, in fact, that we will probably never know just how many native Americans, out of the entire US population, are actually for or against this change.

I think we can feel pretty confident that it's somewhere between 10% and 67%.

Honestly, you're criticising our ability to misrepresent the conclusions of statistical inference, not the actual inference itself. If there were a well-designed study whose methodology was clearly spelled out and open to examination, I would feel pretty confident in the results of that study. The two studies we have both have methodological shortcomings. One produced an estimate of 10%. The other produced an estimate of 67%. Honestly, the 10% study had many more shortcomings, not least of which being the fact that it's 10 years old. But still, I feel very confident that the true figure lies somewhere between those two results. And as I said, the question then becomes "what does the true figure have to be in order for changing the name to become the correct course of action?"

 

[matttyl]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

Proving whether something is a racial slur in court, I believe, has nothing to do with how many people find it offensive.

So then what does? If no one finds it offensive, then how it is a racial slur? If only 1 person finds it offensive, does it automatically become one?

 

[Adam Harstad]

I don't see why the name couldn't be chaged to a local tribe, keep the colors and then have a logo similar to MattFancy or just keep the logo. I can understand if Indians find the name offensive, I still do not like the government making it a huge point of interest lately with all the problems piling up on the US. Dan Snyder has sort of a reputation of thumbing his nose at critics, I expect this to be the same but there is a classy way to move to a new name and still keep the hertige of the team without going all Washington Wizards on it.

I agree. I think there are a lot of really classy and cool options open to Washington if they do decide to change the name. Mike Tanier has in the past suggested "Washington Red Clouds" to honor a specific Native American leader. My favorite is the suggestion that Washington keep its logo and colors and simply change their name to the "Washington Americans". Not only does it honor Native Americans, but it seems a fitting tribute to the country as a whole from a team nominally situated in our nation's capital.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Proving whether something is a racial slur in court, I believe, has nothing to do with how many people find it offensive.

So then what does? If no one finds it offensive, then how it is a racial slur? If only 1 person finds it offensive, does it automatically become one?

I don't want to misrepresent my own knowledge on this issue, or somehow overstate my own degree of certainty. I would love it if a lawyer who was familiar with the details of the law could weigh in. My rudimentary understanding, though, is that it's more about the word's origins, history, and intent.

 

[(HULK)]

What's wrong with Washington Warriors? Sounds better to me. And you can keep the colors/logos as is.

From Snyder's perspective, it would be trademark issues. Golden State owns a bunch of Warriors TMs already.

 

[TobiasFunke]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

Proving whether something is a racial slur in court, I believe, has nothing to do with how many people find it offensive.

So then what does? If no one finds it offensive, then how it is a racial slur? If only 1 person finds it offensive, does it automatically become one?

How does a court (or in this case an administrative appeal board) decide anything? They reach a decision based on application of the facts presented to the legal standard, informed by precedent. It's always at least somewhat subjective, although in some cases I think it's pretty clear-cut, and this is one of those cases. If you want to review their rationale, have at it.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

It's a shame we don't hear more from the native Americans that either have no problem with the use of the name or those that actually like it. I believe that the number of people in both of those categories is larger than the ones who are offended.

Agreed 100%. In fact, there is a high school in Arizona on a Native American reservation. Wanna know their mascot? The Redskins. The Red Mesa Redskins. Why would a group of people name a team after a slur of themselves?

And the principal of that high school said that use of the word outside American Indian communities should be avoided because it could perpetuate the legacy of negativity that the term has created.

And I could show you hundreds of quotes that say Native Americans also have no problem with the name. It's ridiculous in this PC world that we're telling people what they should and shouldn't be offended by. The majority of Native Americans have no issue with the team name.

By not changing it, isn't Snyder (and now you) telling those that have expressly stated that they are offended by it, that they shouldn't be?

So our goal in now to not offend anyone? I find that notion offensive.

Is this what we call a "Catch 22" situation?

I was just responding to the nestled quote - so my goal was to point out an illogical response.

I'm not going to say, you don't have a right to be offensive if you want to be. I'm not sure it's a good business model to be offensive, but as a private business the NFL (and the Redskins) can decide for themselves what they want to do, just like the US Patent courts can make decisions based on the law(s).

 

[Tango]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

It seems like a pretty poor reg/statute to me. I dont like that an enlightened few are able to sway the argument this much

[SIZE=9pt]I haven't seen the sustained uproar from a vast, offended party. [/SIZE]Maybe I missed it?

Isnt this obvious? I mean I can be proven wrong, but it seems to be more about some combination of

(1) completely non-affected people that breathlessly want attention for being seen as compassionate do-gooders (i.e. Costas, et al),

(2) some strange need to strike a blow to an apparently-arrogant Daniel Snyder, and

(3) the lot that specializes in creating a feeling of more oppression wherever they can find at least a thumbnail's worth...so that they can swoop in to be seen as the good-guy by protecting the supposedly-oppressed who so-desperately need their benevolence...and naturally, by extension, making anyone who opposes the "good-guys" a part of the oppressors.

 

[(HULK)]

I don't see why the name couldn't be chaged to a local tribe, keep the colors and then have a logo similar to MattFancy or just keep the logo. I can understand if Indians find the name offensive, I still do not like the government making it a huge point of interest lately with all the problems piling up on the US. Dan Snyder has sort of a reputation of thumbing his nose at critics, I expect this to be the same but there is a classy way to move to a new name and still keep the hertige of the team without going all Washington Wizards on it.

I agree. I think there are a lot of really classy and cool options open to Washington if they do decide to change the name. Mike Tanier has in the past suggested "Washington Red Clouds" to honor a specific Native American leader. My favorite is the suggestion that Washington keep its logo and colors and simply change their name to the "Washington Americans". Not only does it honor Native Americans, but it seems a fitting tribute to the country as a whole from a team nominally situated in our nation's capital.

I like the Washington Americans. But there might be difficulty trademarking the name. For Snyder, this is solely about firewalling his merchandising revenue.

FWIW, the logo was designed by a Native American artist. I think it is a good logo and I don't think they should have to change that if they keep with the Native American theme with a new name.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

It seems like a pretty poor reg/statute to me. I dont like that an enlightened few are able to sway the argument this much

[SIZE=9pt]I haven't seen the sustained uproar from a vast, offended party. [/SIZE]Maybe I missed it?

Isnt this obvious? I mean I can be proven wrong, but it seems to be more about some combination of

(1) completely non-affected people that breathlessly want attention for being seen as compassionate do-gooders (i.e. Costas, et al),

(2) some strange need to strike a blow to an apparently-arrogant Daniel Snyder, and

(3) the lot that specializes in creating a feeling of more oppression wherever they can find at least a thumbnail's worth...so that they can swoop in to be seen as the good-guy by protecting the supposedly-oppressed who so-desperately need their benevolence...and naturally, by extension, making anyone who opposes the "good-guys" a part of the oppressors.

If you haven't seen a sustained uproar, it's likely because Native Americans are a relatively unseen population as a whole. Here's a list of Native American tribes and organizations that have registered formal opposition to the name.

 

[Adam Harstad]

I don't see why the name couldn't be chaged to a local tribe, keep the colors and then have a logo similar to MattFancy or just keep the logo. I can understand if Indians find the name offensive, I still do not like the government making it a huge point of interest lately with all the problems piling up on the US. Dan Snyder has sort of a reputation of thumbing his nose at critics, I expect this to be the same but there is a classy way to move to a new name and still keep the hertige of the team without going all Washington Wizards on it.

I agree. I think there are a lot of really classy and cool options open to Washington if they do decide to change the name. Mike Tanier has in the past suggested "Washington Red Clouds" to honor a specific Native American leader. My favorite is the suggestion that Washington keep its logo and colors and simply change their name to the "Washington Americans". Not only does it honor Native Americans, but it seems a fitting tribute to the country as a whole from a team nominally situated in our nation's capital.

I like the Washington Americans. But there might be difficulty trademarking the name. For Snyder, this is solely about firewalling his merchandising revenue.

FWIW, the logo was designed by a Native American artist. I think it is a good logo and I don't think they should have to change that if they keep with the Native American theme with a new name.

Agreed on the logo. Chief Wahoo he is not.

 

[matttyl]

Proving whether something is a racial slur in court, I believe, has nothing to do with how many people find it offensive.

So then what does? If no one finds it offensive, then how it is a racial slur? If only 1 person finds it offensive, does it automatically become one?

I don't want to misrepresent my own knowledge on this issue, or somehow overstate my own degree of certainty. I would love it if a lawyer who was familiar with the details of the law could weigh in. My rudimentary understanding, though, is that it's more about the word's origins, history, and intent.

Not saying you're wrong by any means, your posts here have shown you're very versed on the subject (don't sell yourself short!). As to the bolded, if that's the case then how did they ever get the name in the first place? I would think that it's much more about the apparently changed meaning of the word - it means something different now than it did then.

 

[Noah Davis]

Since when was the Patent Office appointed as a political organization? Move over, EPA and IRS.

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 was a political decision by the patent office, not one that was based on law.

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.

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.

If that's the case then can I petition Nabisco to stop using the word cracker because I find the word offensive as a white middle-aged middle class individual?

They could just change the name to Washington Rednecks....as there are no protections for offensive names for individuals of the Caucasian persuasion.

1) No, you cannot sue Nabisco to stop using the term "cracker", because cracker is not a federally registered trademark. If it were, then you could, although you would need more evidence than "I find the word offensive". I'm not saying that such evidence couldn't be mustered, I'm just saying, it's a very long and involved process. Legal battles over the Redskins name have taken more than two decades.

2) There are absolutely "protections for offensive names for individuals of Caucasian persuasion." They're the exact same protections that Native Americans just took advantage to have the Redskins trademark struck down. If Washington named their football team the Washington Rednecks, you could absolutely sue to have the trademark revoked. I think you'd have a pretty strong case, too.

Whoa...I got way more of a response than I intended. I wasmaking light of a situation others care strongly about - for that I apologize. I do appreciate the edification though - it is always good to learn.

 

[Tango]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

It seems like a pretty poor reg/statute to me. I dont like that an enlightened few are able to sway the argument this much

[SIZE=9pt]I haven't seen the sustained uproar from a vast, offended party. [/SIZE]Maybe I missed it?

Isnt this obvious? I mean I can be proven wrong, but it seems to be more about some combination of

(1) completely non-affected people that breathlessly want attention for being seen as compassionate do-gooders (i.e. Costas, et al),

(2) some strange need to strike a blow to an apparently-arrogant Daniel Snyder, and

(3) the lot that specializes in creating a feeling of more oppression wherever they can find at least a thumbnail's worth...so that they can swoop in to be seen as the good-guy by protecting the supposedly-oppressed who so-desperately need their benevolence...and naturally, by extension, making anyone who opposes the "good-guys" a part of the oppressors.

If you haven't seen a sustained uproar, it's likely because Native Americans are a relatively unseen population as a whole. Here's a list of Native American tribes and organizations that have registered formal opposition to the name.

Ok, let's assume there's a sustained uproar. If you had to assign a percent to attribute to #1 through #3 above on pushing all this forward (or at least its timing), do you really think it's less than 50%? The PC operation has been running on a full tank for this one; that seems obvious to me. And, it should be noted, that I dont think the existence of such a PC machine does not mean that a name change is "right" or "wrong".

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

Generation ago, Europeans took all the land and recourses in North America they wanted. What is left of Native American tribes sit on useless western plots rebuffed by Americans. Our ancestors completely destroyed their culture, in the process causing much misery and death.

And this offends Native Americans?

I'll never understand it.

I suspect that other stuff offends them, too, but I don't want to speak for anybody.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Not saying you're wrong by any means, your posts here have shown you're very versed on the subject (don't sell yourself short!). As to the bolded, if that's the case then how did they ever get the name in the first place? I would think that it's much more about the apparently changed meaning of the word - it means something different now than it did then.

I've been skimming through the ruling. It says that the trademarks are to be voided if a "substantial composite" of the affected group deemed them disparaging at the time they were registered (they made a specific point of noting that "substantial composite" is not necessarily a majority, which answered one of the questions I had). How could trademarks be registered if a substantial composite found them disparaging? They aren't supposed to be, but some things slip through, especially if they aren't challenged. That's why trademark law exists, to give the injured parties a chance to address mistakes.

Another interesting I've noted in the ruling- the standard is what the terms meant at the time the trademarks were registered. In Harjo, they challenged six different trademarks that had been registered over a period spanning from 1967 to 1990. So it's not a question of whether "Redskins" was deemed derogatory when George Preston Marshall first changed the team name, it's whether it was deemed derogatory when Washington did several trademark redesigns from the late '60s to the early '90s. I'd imagine the prevalence of Native American protests against the name dating back to the early '70s (that I know of- perhaps dating back even earlier) would have been substantial evidence that, at least during the latter of those redesigns, a "substantial composite" of Native Americans deemed the name disparaging.

I'm only 13 pages in, and I'm not a lawyer so some of the legalese is going over my head, but it's an interesting read so far.

 

[Adam Harstad]

The question then is "what percentage of a group has to be offended before changing the name becomes the right thing to do"?

While I completely and totally agree with this, as you know....it makes sense.....does it or would it have any bearing legally speaking with the laws in place today?

As in, what if 5% are offended - and it can be proven without any bias or anything. Since some find it offensive, wouldn't the trademark office have to hold fast with the cancellation? Is 5% enough? Would it have to be more? Does it matter that it's a relatively small part of America in general (less than 10m of a 315m pie)?

It seems like a pretty poor reg/statute to me. I dont like that an enlightened few are able to sway the argument this much

[SIZE=9pt]I haven't seen the sustained uproar from a vast, offended party. [/SIZE]Maybe I missed it?

Isnt this obvious? I mean I can be proven wrong, but it seems to be more about some combination of

(1) completely non-affected people that breathlessly want attention for being seen as compassionate do-gooders (i.e. Costas, et al),

(2) some strange need to strike a blow to an apparently-arrogant Daniel Snyder, and

(3) the lot that specializes in creating a feeling of more oppression wherever they can find at least a thumbnail's worth...so that they can swoop in to be seen as the good-guy by protecting the supposedly-oppressed who so-desperately need their benevolence...and naturally, by extension, making anyone who opposes the "good-guys" a part of the oppressors.

If you haven't seen a sustained uproar, it's likely because Native Americans are a relatively unseen population as a whole. Here's a list of Native American tribes and organizations that have registered formal opposition to the name.

Ok, let's assume there's a sustained uproar. If you had to assign a percent to attribute to #1 through #3 above on pushing all this forward (or at least its timing), do you really think it's less than 50%? The PC operation has been running on a full tank for this one; that seems obvious to me. And, it should be noted, that I dont think the existence of such a PC machine does not mean that a name change is "right" or "wrong".

In reading the ruling, the court says they factors #1-3 would have been irrelevant to their final decision.

Page 9:

"In deciding the second question, whether the term "redskin" may disparage Native Americans, we look not to the American public as a whole, but to the views of the referenced group (i.e. Native Americans). The views of the referenced group are "reasonably determined by the views of a substantial composite thereof". A "substantial composite" of the referenced group is not necessarily a majority of the referenced group. What comprises a "substantial composite" of the referenced group is a fact to be determined at trial" (citations omitted)

So maybe factors #1-3 played a role in the wide media coverage. I wouldn't venture to guess how much of an impact they had, by percentage. They had no impact on the final ruling handed down today, though.

Edit:

Page 54:

"We have not considered the at least 150 letters from individuals other than Native Americans protesting the use of the name Redskins. Inasmuch as our determination of the issue of disparagement concerns the views of Native Americans, the 150 letters from non-Native Americans have limited probative value. While they may serve to indicate a broader consensus regarding the word, which may add to the weight of the evidence, we do not find it necessary to rely on this evidence."

 

[Adam Harstad]

More reading: it seems that this ruling has no impact on the logo. The six trademarks struck down are all for the name, or for images that contain both the logo and the name- no complaints against the logo itself. In addition, from page 16:

"As confirmed by the parties at oral hearing, it is already established that (1) this disparagement claim only pertains to the term REDSKINS and (2) as to "the meaning of the matter in question" "as used in connection with respondent's services, REDSKINS clearly both refers to respondent's professional football team and carries the allusion to Native Americans inherent in the original definition of the word."

It goes on to list all of the associations between the name "REDSKINS" and Native American iconography used by the team over the years (media guides, cheerleader/marching band costumes, the logo, etc). So it seems that if Washington scrubbed all of the Native American associations and replaced them with potatoes, they would in fact be able to retain a trademark on the term "Redskins".

 

[Adam Harstad]

Some of the case precedent is kind of amusing, too. One of the precedents that they referred to was for a trademark for “a prophylactic preparation for the prevention of venereal diseases” that branded itself with references to WWI soldiers.

There's also reference to a "**** Media" case where it was ruled that "applicant's good intent and inoffensive goods and services do not obviate the finding that **** is disparaging in context of the goods and services; and disagreement within the referenced group does not erase the perception of those who find it disparaging". Which would mean it wouldn't matter whether Marshall originally selected "Redskins" to honor Native Americans, and it also wouldn't matter if a substantial percentage of Native Americans were unbothered by the term. And, as an aside, I have to say that this is the first time I've encountered the word "****" as a slur or otherwise.

Edit:

page 23: "In other words, respondent's alleged honorable intent and manner of use of the term do not contribute to the determination of whether a substantial composite of the referenced group found REDSKINS to be a disparaging term in the context of respondent's services during the time period 1967-1990, because the services have not removed the Native American meaning from the term and intent does not affect the second prong. If it is found to be disparaging during the relevant time period, then the Trademark Act mandates removal from the register."