Washington Redskins Football Trademark Defense Is So Vulgar It's Silly

[Anathema]

Aw, so they'll try to bullshit and cajole their way around their racist logo. I'm sure the government will be impressed.

Call it what you want, but the Redskins and the NFL are going to win in the Court of Public Opinion and the Government will fall in line. Especially since the general public is sick and tired of hearing about this and that minority group cryibg crocodile tears.

 

[Ernie S.]

So, you're saying money trumps racism? I don't think so - especially under President Obama.

I'm saying that history shows the NFL will do almost anything to protect its brand and its income/fan interest. Losing a major market and a country-wide fanbase doesn't help either of those things. They'll find a way to make the issue disappear one way or another.

So, will the NFL go to war with the U.S. government and President Obama? Good luck.

barack obama doesn't give a shit about you and your tender feelings. barack obama does and will do what barack obama perceives as good for barack obama.
All it would take is a poll that says Democrats would lose the votes of NFL fans and the appeal will succeed.

 

[Lakhota]

Aw, so they'll try to bullshit and cajole their way around their racist logo. I'm sure the government will be impressed.

Call it what you want, but the Redskins and the NFL are going to win in the Court of Public Opinion and the Government will fall in line. Especially since the general public is sick and tired of hearing about this and that minority group cryibg crocodile tears.

Don't you think Native Americans have been fucked enough?

 

[Anathema]

Don't you think Native Americans have been fucked enough?

I think thst like all conquered cultures and societies, the INDIAN society and culture should have been eradicated a century ago, when their defeat wax completed.

 

[Rotagilla]

Aw, so they'll try to bullshit and cajole their way around their racist logo. I'm sure the government will be impressed.

Call it what you want, but the Redskins and the NFL are going to win in the Court of Public Opinion and the Government will fall in line. Especially since the general public is sick and tired of hearing about this and that minority group cryibg crocodile tears.

Don't you think Native Americans have been fucked enough?

inferior races always get exploited...life is hard in the real world.

 

[Lakhota]

Don't you think Native Americans have been fucked enough?

I think thst like all conquered cultures and societies, the INDIAN society and culture should have been eradicated a century ago, when their defeat wax completed.

Well, whitey managed to kill over 100,000,000 of us. So you think we ALL should have been killed - exterminated?

 

[Staidhup]

They lost, their heritage lives strong, represents a strength and pride everyone respects. So what is exactly your problem with a team that honors Native Americans, are you that ashamed of your heritage? My European ancestors were raped, killed and ravaged by the vikings, should we then prohibit the Vikings? Millions of people were killed during the Crusades should we ban the team name Crusaders? Time to get a life.

 

[Staidhup]

100 million? based on what demographic estimates?

 

[Anathema]

Well, whitey managed to kill over 100,000,000 of us. So you think we ALL should have been killed - exterminated?

They should have been given two options.....

1. Fully embrace European culture and become Americans.

2. Cease to exist.

 

[Ernie S.]

Aw, so they'll try to bullshit and cajole their way around their racist logo. I'm sure the government will be impressed.

Call it what you want, but the Redskins and the NFL are going to win in the Court of Public Opinion and the Government will fall in line. Especially since the general public is sick and tired of hearing about this and that minority group cryibg crocodile tears.

Don't you think Native Americans have been fucked enough?

I see your point. You're completely fucked up.

 

[320 Years of History]

Disclosure statement: My user ID on this site refers to my 320 years of Maryland/Washington, D.C. ancestry, some of which resulted in a "Heinz-57" admixture of ethnicities'/races' blood, including Native American and African American, coursing through my veins. Also, my family and I are Redskins season ticket holders.

In fairness, the appeal filed cites more reasons than you've chosen to share in your opening post. Among them:

• The District Court granted summary judgment repealing legal protection for the Redskins mark on the basis of that mark's having been offensive in 1967 when it was granted; however, in 1967, not one Native American objected to the mark or asserted that it offended them or their ethnic identity group.
  • In 1967 and afterwards, numerous Native Americans expressed widespread support for the team, this without articulating an objection to the team's name.
  • No Native American registered an objection on the grounds of the mark's being offensive to them until 25 years after it was registered.
    • On two occasions, courts determined that laches existed with regard to Native Americans registering a complaint regarding the team's mark being disparaging.
• There is no precedent for the cancellation/revocation of a trademark.
• Cancelling a trademark on the grounds of offensiveness violates the First Amendment's protection of speech.
• The Redskins filed for and received trademark protection in 1967, and again in 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2a of the Lanham act, as codified in 1945, and still in force, bars registration of marks that "may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." As part of the process for registering and obtaining protection for a mark, the Patent Office (PTO), absent prima facie evidence that a mark is unregistrable under Section 2, discloses the mark in the "Official Gazette."
  
  Once the mark has been publicized, anyone who feels it disparages them may file a petition to that effect, bidding the PTO to cancel the mark's registration. The petition may do so at any time if they claim the disparagement pertains to Section 2a of Lanham. That said, U.S. common law (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) procedures; U.S. Code Section 1067) exists indicating that although one may petition at any time, the disparagement must have occurred at the time the the mark was registered, not some quantity of years later.

Now, having laid out more comprehensively the nature and extent of most of PFI's line of argument (there are a few others, but they seem to me, not being an attorney, in the main, procedural and thus beyond my ability to evaluate effectively), I have to agree that legally speaking, the mark "The Redskins" qualifies for and should retain its trademark protection. Whether it also deserves social opprobrium is a different matter, one that has nothing to do with what it deserves in law.

Practically speaking, I don't care what the Washington football team's name is. Economically, I think changing the name would be quite expensive, and to that end, I'd prefer not to have to bear some share of that cost. Season tickets, concessions, etc. are dear enough as it is; I am surely not the only one who wants not to have another cause for them to more rapidly and sooner cost more. Emotionally, I'd just as soon it remain as it is, but if it changed, nothing about how I feel about the "former Redskins" would change.

My First Amendment Thoughts on the Matter:
Whereas the former points are merely facts, this claim is one that requires a judgment call, and to that end, I have to agree with PFI (the Redskins owner). As much as I find more than a few terms and phrases offensive, some of which are detailed in the brief, terms I consider unworthy of the public's approbation, I yet agree that they are protected forms of expression, regardless of the intent their "speaker" held when using them.

In my mind, there are no bad words, only bad intentions. Therefore, legally speaking, offensive or not, a private entity/person is entitled to trademark protection of his ostensibly offensive brand name, moniker, or slogan. Seeing as PFI is a business, the burden lies with consumers of PFI's product to show their opprobrium via their wallets. If/when it becomes economically imprudent to continue to use the trademark, namely the term "Redskins," PFI will, in order to remain a going concern, desist from using it.

My Thoughts Re: Subjecting "The Redskins" (as a mark, and along with other words) to Obloquy:
I without exception agree that folks offended by the use of "The Redskins" as a team brand and name have every right to deny their support of all forms to the team. Indeed, I believe that if they feel that way, they should do exactly that, perhaps even encourage other to do the same. I'm fine with their taking either or both actions.

The thing that gets me is that although there is much outcry about PFI's mark and use of it, we as a society seem to have little to no desire to censure those who routinely use what are the two most often uttered, thought and heard derisive epithets in the American vernacular: the "N-word" and the "F-word." So comfortable have we become with the first of those terms that the "a-ending" variation of it has become the name of a popular music group.

Clear diction or not, I don't care for the sentiment the "N-word" embodies. That word arose as the penultimate aspersion of disdain, derision, repudiation, and reprobation one could direct at others, regardless of their race. For that reason I don't feel it is appropriate to use in "polite society." My personal feeling on the matter notwithstanding, I must accord folks the right to use those words in speech and writing.

The thing is that be it 1945, 1967, 1978, or later, one would have no trouble showing that, were a trademark filing made using the "N-word," the term is offensive to many. I am hard pressed to make the same claim re: the term "The Redskins." Truly, not once in my life (56 years) have I heard or seen the word "redskin" used derogatorily. I realize my personal experiences don't coincide with the reality millions have faced, so perhaps as goes my having been blessed to have never heard the term used to disparage someone is just that, a fortunate and serendipitous circumstance.

Really, I don't think the outcry against "The Redskins" is much beyond something onto and about which folks can latch and gripe. I don't see a whole lot of cause to now, after the team's having been supported since 1933 by Native American and others, to make a stink about the team's name. Were it clear to me that people from 1933 onward continuously and consistently deplored "redskin," I'd say at a minimum social ignominy be an onus we all owe in respect of our Native American brethren.

For now, however, my position is that when I observe Americans fulminate over using the "N-word" and the "F-word" to the extent that it becomes effectively extinct in plebeian vernacular, I will advocate for (or support) amending Lanham and/or the TTAB Section 1067 stipulations and guidelines. If one or more individuals move now or later, regardless of the extance of the "N" and "F" words, to amend that section of the code so that it can apply not only at the time of a mark's registration but also afterwards, I have no objection to their doing so.

 

[Lakhota]

Disclosure statement: My user ID on this site refers to my 320 years of Maryland/Washington, D.C. ancestry, some of which resulted in a "Heinz-57" admixture of ethnicities'/races' blood, including Native American and African American, coursing through my veins. Also, my family and I are Redskins season ticket holders.

In fairness, the appeal filed cites more reasons than you've chosen to share in your opening post. Among them:

• The District Court granted summary judgment repealing legal protection for the Redskins mark on the basis of that mark's having been offensive in 1967 when it was granted; however, in 1967, not one Native American objected to the mark or asserted that it offended them or their ethnic identity group.
  • In 1967 and afterwards, numerous Native Americans expressed widespread support for the team, this without articulating an objection to the team's name.
  • No Native American registered an objection on the grounds of the mark's being offensive to them until 25 years after it was registered.
    • On two occasions, courts determined that laches existed with regard to Native Americans registering a complaint regarding the team's mark being disparaging.
• There is no precedent for the cancellation/revocation of a trademark.
• Cancelling a trademark on the grounds of offensiveness violates the First Amendment's protection of speech.
• The Redskins filed for and received trademark protection in 1967, and again in 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2a of the Lanham act, as codified in 1945, and still in force, bars registration of marks that "may disparage … persons, living or dead, institutions beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute." As part of the process for registering and obtaining protection for a mark, the Patent Office (PTO), absent prima facie evidence that a mark is unregistrable under Section 2, discloses the mark in the "Official Gazette."
  
  Once the mark has been publicized, anyone who feels it disparages them may file a petition to that effect, bidding the PTO to cancel the mark's registration. The petition may do so at any time if they claim the disparagement pertains to Section 2a of Lanham. That said, U.S. common law (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) procedures; U.S. Code Section 1067) exists indicating that although one may petition at any time, the disparagement must have occurred at the time the the mark was registered, not some quantity of years later.

Now, having laid out more comprehensively the nature and extent of most of PFI's line of argument (there are a few others, but they seem to me, not being an attorney, in the main, procedural and thus beyond my ability to evaluate effectively), I have to agree that legally speaking, the mark "The Redskins" qualifies for and should retain its trademark protection. Whether it also deserves social opprobrium is a different matter, one that has nothing to do with what it deserves in law.

Practically speaking, I don't care what the Washington football team's name is. Economically, I think changing the name would be quite expensive, and to that end, I'd prefer not to have to bear some share of that cost. Season tickets, concessions, etc. are dear enough as it is; I am surely not the only one who wants not to have another cause for them to more rapidly and sooner cost more. Emotionally, I'd just as soon it remain as it is, but if it changed, nothing about how I feel about the "former Redskins" would change.

My First Amendment Thoughts on the Matter:
Whereas the former points are merely facts, this claim is one that requires a judgment call, and to that end, I have to agree with PFI (the Redskins owner). As much as I find more than a few terms and phrases offensive, some of which are detailed in the brief, terms I consider unworthy of the public's approbation, I yet agree that they are protected forms of expression, regardless of the intent their "speaker" held when using them.

In my mind, there are no bad words, only bad intentions. Therefore, legally speaking, offensive or not, a private entity/person is entitled to trademark protection of his ostensibly offensive brand name, moniker, or slogan. Seeing as PFI is a business, the burden lies with consumers of PFI's product to show their opprobrium via their wallets. If/when it becomes economically imprudent to continue to use the trademark, namely the term "Redskins," PFI will, in order to remain a going concern, desist from using it.

My Thoughts Re: Subjecting "The Redskins" (as a mark, and along with other words) to Obloquy:
I without exception agree that folks offended by the use of "The Redskins" as a team brand and name have every right to deny their support of all forms to the team. Indeed, I believe that if they feel that way, they should do exactly that, perhaps even encourage other to do the same. I'm fine with their taking either or both actions.

The thing that gets me is that although there is much outcry about PFI's mark and use of it, we as a society seem to have little to no desire to censure those who routinely use what are the two most often uttered, thought and heard derisive epithets in the American vernacular: the "N-word" and the "F-word." So comfortable have we become with the first of those terms that the "a-ending" variation of it has become the name of a popular music group.

Clear diction or not, I don't care for the sentiment the "N-word" embodies. That word arose as the penultimate aspersion of disdain, derision, repudiation, and reprobation one could direct at others, regardless of their race. For that reason I don't feel it is appropriate to use in "polite society." My personal feeling on the matter notwithstanding, I must accord folks the right to use those words in speech and writing.

The thing is that be it 1945, 1967, 1978, or later, one would have no trouble showing that, were a trademark filing made using the "N-word," the term is offensive to many. I am hard pressed to make the same claim re: the term "The Redskins." Truly, not once in my life (56 years) have I heard or seen the word "redskin" used derogatorily. I realize my personal experiences don't coincide with the reality millions have faced, so perhaps as goes my having been blessed to have never heard the term used to disparage someone is just that, a fortunate and serendipitous circumstance.

Really, I don't think the outcry against "The Redskins" is much beyond something onto and about which folks can latch and gripe. I don't see a whole lot of cause to now, after the team's having been supported since 1933 by Native American and others, to make a stink about the team's name. Were it clear to me that people from 1933 onward continuously and consistently deplored "redskin," I'd say at a minimum social ignominy be an onus we all owe in respect of our Native American brethren.

For now, however, my position is that when I observe Americans fulminate over using the "N-word" and the "F-word" to the extent that it becomes effectively extinct in plebeian vernacular, I will advocate for (or support) amending Lanham and/or the TTAB Section 1067 stipulations and guidelines. If one or more individuals move now or later, regardless of the extance of the "N" and "F" words, to amend that section of the code so that it can apply not only at the time of a mark's registration but also afterwards, I have no objection to their doing so.

Interesting.

C_Clayton_Jones

 

[Lakhota]

They lost, their heritage lives strong, represents a strength and pride everyone respects. So what is exactly your problem with a team that honors Native Americans, are you that ashamed of your heritage? My European ancestors were raped, killed and ravaged by the vikings, should we then prohibit the Vikings? Millions of people were killed during the Crusades should we ban the team name Crusaders? Time to get a life.

So, you think Dan Snyder is "honoring" Native Americans? Holy shit. The team was founded by a diseased racist who hated everyone but whites. Everyone! Even his final will made that clear. In short - the team name was NEVER intended to "honor" Native Americans - it was to degrade and ridicule. Take a close look at the logo. It was intended to make fun of Native Americans. BTW, did you ever see a Native American who was that dark?

The Racist Redskins - The Daily Beast

Granddaughter of former Redskins owner George P. Marshall condemns team’s name

A History Lesson for the Redskins Owner

 

[AmericanFirst1]

They're citing products like "Take Yo Panties Off" clothing to save their offensive trademark.

Washington's football club is facing third and long in their desperate attempt to save their canceled "Redskins" trademark, but alluding to their latest defense as a "Hail Mary" play would probably offend actual nuns who literally hail the Virgin Mary.

Why? Because Washington football's defense for keeping their disparaging Native American slur as a registered trademark invokes products like a "Slutsseeker" dating service, "Gringo Style" salsa, "Dangerous Negro" shirts and "Take Yo Panties Off" clothing. Seriously.

Following a federal judge's July approval of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeals Board's 2014 decision to cancel the trademark, Washington football is continuing to exhaust all federal means of appeal, with Friday's court filing revealing a vulgar new strategy.

As Washington's lawyers argue in their opening brief for a court of appeals hearing on the status of the "Redskins" trademark, these names are currently protected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. So, the thinking goes, theirs should be too.

Washington's lawyers didn't stop at those products though. In their brief, provided by The Washington Post, they seemingly list every single offensively named product that has a registered trademark.

The PTO has registered hundreds if not thousands of marks that the Team believes are racist, or misogynistic, vulgar, or otherwise offensive. By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing; DANGEROUS NEGRO shirts; SLUTSSEEKER dating services; DAGO SWAGG clothing; DUMB BLONDE beer; TWATTY GIRL cartoons; BAKED BY A NEGRO bakery goods; BIG TITTY BLEND coffee; RETARDIPEDIA website; MIDGET-MAN condoms and inflatable sex dolls; and JIZZ underwear. These are not isolated instances. The government routinely registers pornographers’ marks:TEENSDOPORN.COM, MILFSDOPORN.COM, THUG PORN, GHETTO BOOTY, and BOUND GANGBANGS are but a few.​

And even these:

No one today thinks registration reflects government approval. But if this Court holds that it does, how will the government explain registrations like MARIJUANA FOR SALE, CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, LICENSED SERIAL KILLER, YID DISH, DIRTY WHOOORE CLOTHING COMPANY, and MURDER 4 HIRE?[4]​

And finally, the worst of the lot -- deemed unprintable by newspaper standards.

Other startling examples that would reflect government endorsement under the decision below include: SHANK THE B!T@H board game; CRACKA AZZ SKATEBOARDS; ANAL FANTASY COLLECTION, KLITORIS, and OMAZING SEX TOYS sex toys; HOT OCTOPUSS anti-premature ejaculation creams; OL GEEZER wines; EDIBLE CROTCHLESS GUMMY PANTIES lingerie; WTF WORK? online forum; MILF WEED bags; GRINGO STYLE SALSA; MAKE YOUR OWN DILDO; GRINGO BBQ; CONTEMPORARY NEGRO, F’D UP, WHITE TRASH REBEL, I LOVE VAGINA, WHITE GIRL WITH A BOOTY, PARTY WITH SLUTS, CRIPPLED OLD BIKER BASTARDS, DICK BALLS, and REDNECK ARMY apparel; OH! MY NAPPY HAIR shampoos; REFORMED WHORES and WHORES FROM HELL musical bands; LAUGHING MY VAGINA OFF entertainment; NAPPY ROOTS records; BOOTY CALL sex aids; BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM wallets; and DUMB BLONDE hair products. Word limits prevent us from listing more.​

Just change the damn name.

More: Washington Football's Trademark Defense Is So Vulgar It's Silly

It sounds like team owner Dan snyder is desperate to keep that logo money rolling in - regardless of how low he has to sink to do it.

Crybaby

 

[Lakhota]

 

[Katzndogz]

Everything is offensive. A woman recently found the word "too" offensive and sexist. If someone objects to the word redskins, get therapy.

 

[Lakhota]

It's time for Jew Snyder to do the right thing!

 

[Mac1958]

I'd guess most people really don't give a shit.
.

 

[theHawk]

They're citing products like "Take Yo Panties Off" clothing to save their offensive trademark.

Washington's football club is facing third and long in their desperate attempt to save their canceled "Redskins" trademark, but alluding to their latest defense as a "Hail Mary" play would probably offend actual nuns who literally hail the Virgin Mary.

Why? Because Washington football's defense for keeping their disparaging Native American slur as a registered trademark invokes products like a "Slutsseeker" dating service, "Gringo Style" salsa, "Dangerous Negro" shirts and "Take Yo Panties Off" clothing. Seriously.

Following a federal judge's July approval of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's Trademark Trial and Appeals Board's 2014 decision to cancel the trademark, Washington football is continuing to exhaust all federal means of appeal, with Friday's court filing revealing a vulgar new strategy.

As Washington's lawyers argue in their opening brief for a court of appeals hearing on the status of the "Redskins" trademark, these names are currently protected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. So, the thinking goes, theirs should be too.

Washington's lawyers didn't stop at those products though. In their brief, provided by The Washington Post, they seemingly list every single offensively named product that has a registered trademark.

The PTO has registered hundreds if not thousands of marks that the Team believes are racist, or misogynistic, vulgar, or otherwise offensive. By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing; DANGEROUS NEGRO shirts; SLUTSSEEKER dating services; DAGO SWAGG clothing; DUMB BLONDE beer; TWATTY GIRL cartoons; BAKED BY A NEGRO bakery goods; BIG TITTY BLEND coffee; RETARDIPEDIA website; MIDGET-MAN condoms and inflatable sex dolls; and JIZZ underwear. These are not isolated instances. The government routinely registers pornographers’ marks:TEENSDOPORN.COM, MILFSDOPORN.COM, THUG PORN, GHETTO BOOTY, and BOUND GANGBANGS are but a few.​

And even these:

No one today thinks registration reflects government approval. But if this Court holds that it does, how will the government explain registrations like MARIJUANA FOR SALE, CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, LICENSED SERIAL KILLER, YID DISH, DIRTY WHOOORE CLOTHING COMPANY, and MURDER 4 HIRE?[4]​

And finally, the worst of the lot -- deemed unprintable by newspaper standards.

Other startling examples that would reflect government endorsement under the decision below include: SHANK THE B!T@H board game; CRACKA AZZ SKATEBOARDS; ANAL FANTASY COLLECTION, KLITORIS, and OMAZING SEX TOYS sex toys; HOT OCTOPUSS anti-premature ejaculation creams; OL GEEZER wines; EDIBLE CROTCHLESS GUMMY PANTIES lingerie; WTF WORK? online forum; MILF WEED bags; GRINGO STYLE SALSA; MAKE YOUR OWN DILDO; GRINGO BBQ; CONTEMPORARY NEGRO, F’D UP, WHITE TRASH REBEL, I LOVE VAGINA, WHITE GIRL WITH A BOOTY, PARTY WITH SLUTS, CRIPPLED OLD BIKER BASTARDS, DICK BALLS, and REDNECK ARMY apparel; OH! MY NAPPY HAIR shampoos; REFORMED WHORES and WHORES FROM HELL musical bands; LAUGHING MY VAGINA OFF entertainment; NAPPY ROOTS records; BOOTY CALL sex aids; BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM wallets; and DUMB BLONDE hair products. Word limits prevent us from listing more.​

Just change the damn name.

More: Washington Football's Trademark Defense Is So Vulgar It's Silly

It sounds like team owner Dan snyder is desperate to keep that logo money rolling in - regardless of how low he has to sink to do it.

Looks like Lakhota has got some serious microaggressions to whine about.

 

[Lakhota]

I'd guess most people really don't give a shit.
.

I agree - mostly insensitive white racists.