Washington Redskins lose their trademark

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

I guess Pace is speechless.......

Ridiculous.

http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/03/24/3418459/amid-name-controversy-washington-redskins-launch-foundation-to-help-native-americans/

"...The National Congress of American Indians, the oldest and largest Native American organization in America, released a statement Tuesday responding to Snyder’s foundation and reiterating its calls for a name change:
“The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) is encouraged to see that after decades of insisting their team name supposedly honors Indian Country, the Washington, DC football team’s owner is dedicating time and resources to the challenges facing tribal nations.
“However, this Foundation will only contribute to the problems in Indian Country if it does not also address the very real issue of how Native people are consistently stereotyped, caricaturized, and denigrated by mascot imagery and the use of the R-word slur. For Mr. Snyder and the Foundation to truly support and partner with Indian Country, they must first change the name of the DC team and prove that the creation of this organization isn’t just a publicity stunt.”"

*****************





"...The dilapidated structures are typical of the overcrowded and sub-standard housing conditions where Northern Plains Indians are forced to live. Many Indian reservations have the worst housing in the United States. Tens of thousands of Indians often have to live three families to a unit with as many as 18 people crowded into aging two-bedroom houses..."


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/2013/04/17/oglala-sioux-tribes-trail-hope-delivers-message-dc-today-148862

Chrissy had posted a thread about this when the decision first came out. She included a list of other trademarked name that were deemed to be "OK." All of them were offensive terms. Seems like a very arbitrary decision making process as to what terms are offensive or not.

Racism is neither arbitrary or ridiculous. It is wrong. The name should be changed. Jimmy Kimmel has the answer.....put a F before Redskins, and they become Fredskins.

2seaoat wrote:http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html

OLD, insignificant news.

2seaoat wrote:Racism is neither arbitrary or ridiculous.  It is wrong.  The name should be changed.   Jimmy Kimmel has the answer.....put a F before Redskins, and they become Fredskins.

Well the decision-making process is arbitrary. Why did they rule this name to be offensive, yet left many, many others alone? What's the criteria?

Well the decision-making process is arbitrary. Why did they rule this name to be offensive, yet left many, many others alone? What's the criteria?

You are joking are you not? Why is this name offensive?


Lanham Act, a 1946 law prohibiting trademarks that “may disparage", is not an arbitrary process and over 100 pages of the decision went into the analysis of how the use of the name redskin does disparage. The decision can be appealed and could be overturned, but the legal basis is sound and certainly not arbitrary........really, you do not see this as an offensive use of a racial slur?

2seaoat wrote:Well the decision-making process is arbitrary. Why did they rule this name to be offensive, yet left many, many others alone? What's the criteria?

You are joking are you not?  Why is this name offensive?  


Lanham Act, a 1946 law prohibiting trademarks that “may disparage", is not an arbitrary process and over 100 pages of the decision went into the analysis of how the use of the name redskin does disparage.  The decision can be appealed and could be overturned, but the legal basis is sound and certainly not arbitrary........really, you do not see this as an offensive use of a racial slur?

You misunderstand. Why are they continuing to allow so many other trademarks that "may disparage?"

You misunderstand. Why are they continuing to allow so many other trademarks that "may disparage?"




They are not.  Where did you get that idea?  Also, what does that have to do with the fact that Redskin does disparage? It certainly requires a complaint, and the native americans have been complaining about the use of this name.