It took 7 years to decide the original case, but the appeals process was much faster. But yes, Snyder retains trademark protection for as long as the appeals process is ongoing.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
US Patent Office Cancels Redskins Trademark (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter cobalt_27
- Start date
matttyl
Footballguy
I mean in terms of canceling the trademark. The first suit was apparently filed in 1992 and decided upon in 1997 due (from what limited understanding I have) to something akin to a technicality of the age of the plaintiffs. Why wasn't it done again that same year or the next year? Why did it take 16 years to do again?
If the term is in fact a racial slur today, was it a racial slur in 1998? If so, why wasn't the trademark pulled then instead of today, 16 years later?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Huh?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.
Someone brought a challenge to an existing trademark. The Office HAS to rule on that challenge, it's literally their job to do so. They interpreted and applied the law and reached a decision. The law banning trademark protection for disparaging language is no the books. It's every bit a decision based on that law, just as it would be if they'd ruled that the name was not a slur and rejected the challenge. Calling it "political" is meaningless mumbo-jumbo; it's political because people care about it, the decision would be politicized regardless of outcome.
I have absolutely no idea what "the end doesn't always justify the means" and "this is a very slippery slope" mean in this context. It seems like you're just spouting irrelevant cliches.
AhrnCityPahnder
Yinz-o-riffic
The Washington Pit Bosses has a nice ring to it.
Well, for starters, my name isn't trademarked. You are free to sell t-shirts prominently branded with "Adam Harstad". If I wanted to get you to stop, I'd probably have to resort to slander and libel arguments rather than trademark arguments.
But let's pretend for a moment that I actually had trademarked that name, and you wanted to get it deregistered as a trademark on the grounds that it is a racial slur. You'd first have to prove standing- that you are the race thus being slurred, that damages have occurred, and that the statute of limitations has not expired on your claim. After that, you'd have to prove that it was actually a racist slur, and your personal feelings will be inadmissible as evidence.
But let's pretend for a moment that you manage to prove standing and provide evidence that my name really is a slur. Great, any trademark I held on it would therefore be canceled. I still wouldn't have to "change my tag", as you demand. I'd still be free to call myself Adam Harstad with impunity, and nobody could stop me. All that changes is that I no longer had the legal grounds to stop others from using my name for whatever they want, too. In other words, I can continue registering as "Adam Harstad", but you'd be just as free to register as "Adam Harstad", if you wanted (although, again, libel and slander laws would still apply).
spider321
Footballguy
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
The history and timeline is laid out in the first few pages of today's decision, which is linked in the FFA thread.
Basically it was a racial slur in 1999 according to the PTO but there were standing issues like you reference that later reversed the decision in the courts. This current proceeding was initiated once that one had reached the point where it looked like those standing issues would prevent the other one from moving forward, I think around 2009.
Bottom line, it didn't "take 16 years to do it again." It's been one long process.
Reading up on the history of the lawsuits, it appears what happens is that a large group brought the suit in 1992, and it took 7 years for the court to issue a decision. The court decided in 1999 that "redskins" was a slur and therefore not a valid trademark. Washington appealed, and a higher court determined that the group that brought the suit did not have legal standing to do so. The group then argued that the youngest member of the group did, in fact, have legal standing. That battle went on until 2008, when the court determined that even the youngest member alone did not have legal standing. They challenged that decision, and in November 2009, the Supreme Court declined to take on the challenge. The group then spent two and a half years rebuilding the case and gathering younger plaintiffs who clearly did have standing, and brought a new suit in 2012. That's the suit that was decided today, two years later.
So yes, courts ruled in 1999 that the name was a slur, but the trademark hasn't been pulled because both sides are still arguing over whether they have the legal standing to challenge it.
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Because you think the patent office just woke up today and said: man that Redskins name is offensive to a small group of people we, the US government, commited genocide against 175 years ago. Better eliminate that trademark. Why isn't Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima's trademarks being removed?what do you think the job of a patent office is exactly? It's not exactly congress.
karmarooster
Footballguy
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
No it is much more than that. If you don't think this is coming from somewhere else, like the office of Harry Reid, you are wrong and not paying attention to the horrible, horrible collection of senators we have appointed. I fail to see how this is a topic worthy of any discussion in any government capacity. And I will continue to point again and again to the overtly racist brands of rice and maple syrup as notes that they only care about this issue because NFL is HUGE business and headline grabbing for ##### bags to push their ridiculous agenda to become more famous and thus gain more votes.
biju
Footballguy
As noted above, they didn't simply decide to revoke it--this has been in proceedings since the 90s. Care to revise your thoughts? As a side note, what is offensive about "Uncle Ben"? Are you simply just looking for black people on products?Because you think the patent office just woke up today and said: man that Redskins name is offensive to a small group of people we, the US government, commited genocide against 175 years ago. Better eliminate that trademark. Why isn't Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima's trademarks being removed?
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
It's not. It was a challenge to the patent. Read up on the history. Whether you agree with the decision or not, there is no nefarious scheme going on here.
If you find Uncle Ben offensive, bring a challenge. If you don't lack standing - battle on!
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
You're trolling me right? I do not revise my view. If this has been in preceedings since the 90's why now? How are those products with the faces of slaves not taken in the same vein as Redskins? Why arn't the Indians and the Braves being attacked? They have the same red face mascot, albeit, scaled back in recent years.As noted above, they didn't simply decide to revoke it--this has been in proceedings since the 90s. Care to revise your thoughts? As a side note, what is offensive about "Uncle Ben"? Are you simply just looking for black people on products?Because you think the patent office just woke up today and said: man that Redskins name is offensive to a small group of people we, the US government, commited genocide against 175 years ago. Better eliminate that trademark. Why isn't Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima's trademarks being removed?
Also, I think most of you are confusing me stating the government to stay out of it as a defense of the Redskins name. It is not. That being said I am impressed that when it comes to wanting a the Redskins to change their name or baseball to stop using steroids the government will attack it on all sides but passing a budget... NO ####### WAY!
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
So I guess it wasn't a racial slur last year? This is PC strongarming. To think otherwise is disingenuous.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.
biju
Footballguy
Wouldn't that be an argument that the film industry deemed it offensive and stopped using the term 46 years ago?
fatness
Footballguy
It's not a bad idea. The color scheme staying would be a big thing to fans (me included). It's hard to come up with many things that are burgundy. "Washington Pomegranates" just doesn't sound right, and all their players would be round and seedy.
(HULK)
(Smash)
Just got emailed this statement:
[SIZE=large]STATEMENT BY BOB RASKOPF, TRADEMARK ATTORNEY [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt]FOR THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS[/SIZE]
“We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.
‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
-Washington Post, April 3, 1999
‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
-Washington Post, October 2, 2003
We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.
As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.
This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.
When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.
Why?
As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.
In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:
It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.
The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”
[SIZE=large]STATEMENT BY BOB RASKOPF, TRADEMARK ATTORNEY [/SIZE][SIZE=16pt]FOR THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS[/SIZE]
LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. – The following is a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Washington Redskins, regarding today’s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:“We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.
‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
-Washington Post, April 3, 1999
‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
-Washington Post, October 2, 2003
We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.
As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.
This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.
When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.
Why?
As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans...’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.
In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:
It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.
The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”
biju
Footballguy
Because this is how legal proceedings work? I mean, didn't the guy who killed Sean Taylor just get sentenced? Were you asking "why now" on that one?You're trolling me right? I do not revise my view. If this has been in preceedings since the 90's why now? How are those products with the faces of slaves not taken in the same vein as Redskins? Why arn't the Indians and the Braves being attacked? They have the same red face mascot, albeit, scaled back in recent years.As noted above, they didn't simply decide to revoke it--this has been in proceedings since the 90s. Care to revise your thoughts? As a side note, what is offensive about "Uncle Ben"? Are you simply just looking for black people on products?Because you think the patent office just woke up today and said: man that Redskins name is offensive to a small group of people we, the US government, commited genocide against 175 years ago. Better eliminate that trademark. Why isn't Uncle Ben or Aunt Jemima's trademarks being removed?
Also, I think most of you are confusing me stating the government to stay out of it as a defense of the Redskins name. It is not. That being said I am impressed that when it comes to wanting a the Redskins to change their name or baseball to stop using steroids the government will attack it on all sides but passing a budget... NO ####### WAY!
And...it's telling that you see a black man in a suit and say that is "the face of a slave". You do understand that a picture of a black man is not inherently racist, right?
karmarooster
Footballguy
This is not the sort of the thing the right will understand.Dr. Octopus said:
Both "Uncle Ben" and "Aunt Jemima" play on racist stereotypes about southern slavery. That's a big reason why both brands have changed their logos and branding in recent years- Aunt Jemima lost the headscarf, Uncle Ben got "promoted" to CEO. Also, "uncle" and "aunt" were originally formally used as titles for elderly black people because they were deemed unworthy of "Mr." or "Mrs."biju said:
fatness
Footballguy
I'd advise you to wait for the appeal. Dan Snyder will sue you. He sues everyone. He sued a grandmother. He sued a newspaper over a column.Quez said:
If changing the team name meant also changing owners 90% of people would be in favor of this. Dan Snyder's horrible.
Last edited by a moderator:
The courts ruled back in 1999 that it was a racial slur.Bronco Billy said:
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.
biju
Footballguy
Thanks for the clarification--that is something I didn't know. Maybe I'm fired up because the guy rallying against this is "bojang0301" which I may have assumed was already a bit racist.
bojang0301, I apologize.
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
lolzAdam Harstad said:
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
fatness
Footballguy
MattFancy
Footballguy
If we're naming our team after Alfred Morris, anything other than Alf as our mascot would be disappointing.
Bronco Billy
Footballguy
Haven't you heard? Anything with aliens is out. Washington Undocumented Workers has a nice ring to it though...
Bojang0301
Omar4Heisman
Kool-Aid Larry
Footballguy
they need a stealth slur like 'mondays'
mightyeskimo
Footballguy
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.
MattFancy
Footballguy
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.”
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
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.
dickey moe
Fingerpicker
Washington Foreskins
Ned Ryerson
Footballguy
Well, if the purpose was to show that the term was offensive WHEN THE MARK WAS REGISTERED, which is the standard, then it would be helpful to show how it was considered at that time.MattFancy said:
MattFancy
Footballguy
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.
MattFancy
Footballguy
MattFancy
Footballguy
But words change meaning over time. I don't think I've ever heard someone refer to a Native American as a "redskin". I bet if you went up to random people in the street and asked them what comes to mind when you say "redskin" a vast majority would say the football team.
matttyl
Footballguy
So if the term has created a "a legacy of negativity", why do they still continue to use it? MattFancy just used the term on an internet message board, well outside of an "American Indian community", did it perpetuate the "legacy of negativity"?
TobiasFunke
Footballguy
Wrong (not that it matters). See my link above.
In fact this is the exact opposite: groups of Native Americans are the ones challenging the name as offensive, and you and others are the ones telling them what they should and shouldn't be offended by.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
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?
Last edited by a moderator:
roadkill1292
Footballguy
Who is the soccer player in your avatar?Phenix said:
mightyeskimo
Footballguy
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.
habsfan
Footballguy
They might be saying that but what they likely really mean is that their offence to it is going to create a colossal inconvenience.
