Home
Law professor Jonathan Turley questions the U.S. Patent Office's decision to rescind trademark protection for the Washington Redskins. While the move pleased many activists and politicians, Turley asks in a Washington Post article Sunday, is such social activism on the part of a federal agency really a good idea?
"As federal agencies have grown in size and scope, they have increasingly viewed their regulatory functions as powers to reward or punish citizens and groups," Turley writes. "There is an obvious problem when the sanctioning of free exercise of religion or speech becomes a matter of discretionary agency action
http://washingtonexaminer.com/patent-office-quandary-no-to-redskins-yes-to-crazy-bitch/article/2550046?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral
what a crock of over bearing shit. and look at all those crazy names that women could be offended of that are registered.
I think they should have also gave a paten to the person who wanted it for creepy assed cracker.
why not, they have
For example, there are registered trademarks that could easily offend some women. Start with "Crazy Bitch" (a barbecue sauce registered in August 2013). Or "That Bitch is Nuts" (a roasted nuts snack registered in October 2013). Or "Bitches of South Beach" (a reality show title registered in November 2012). That's just three; there are plenty of others
Or take "Wine Slut" (a clothing name registered in January 2009). Or "S.L.U.T.S" (a thermal cup brand registered in August 2008). Or "The Slutcracker" (a dance performance registered in July 2009).
Or "Whore Couture" (a clothing label registered in December 2007). Or "Whoremoans" (clothing registered in September 2008). Or "Food Whore" (clothing registered in June 2014). There are lots of others.
"As federal agencies have grown in size and scope, they have increasingly viewed their regulatory functions as powers to reward or punish citizens and groups," Turley writes. "There is an obvious problem when the sanctioning of free exercise of religion or speech becomes a matter of discretionary agency action
http://washingtonexaminer.com/patent-office-quandary-no-to-redskins-yes-to-crazy-bitch/article/2550046?custom_click=rss&utm_campaign=Weekly+Standard+Story+Box&utm_source=weeklystandard.com&utm_medium=referral
what a crock of over bearing shit. and look at all those crazy names that women could be offended of that are registered.
I think they should have also gave a paten to the person who wanted it for creepy assed cracker.
why not, they have
For example, there are registered trademarks that could easily offend some women. Start with "Crazy Bitch" (a barbecue sauce registered in August 2013). Or "That Bitch is Nuts" (a roasted nuts snack registered in October 2013). Or "Bitches of South Beach" (a reality show title registered in November 2012). That's just three; there are plenty of others
Or take "Wine Slut" (a clothing name registered in January 2009). Or "S.L.U.T.S" (a thermal cup brand registered in August 2008). Or "The Slutcracker" (a dance performance registered in July 2009).
Or "Whore Couture" (a clothing label registered in December 2007). Or "Whoremoans" (clothing registered in September 2008). Or "Food Whore" (clothing registered in June 2014). There are lots of others.
