# USPTO calls for cancellation of Washington Redskins trademarks...



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Board strips Redskins' trademark protection due to name

But before you go printing unlicensed Redskins merchandise:
Legal Look: Cancellation of Redskins trademark


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

I'm glad you posted the second link.

People will still bet their livelihood that they will be able to print and sell Redskins merchandise legally because of this.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

Very true, Greg. That's exactly why I included the second link. I thought it was a solid write-up on how the mark can still be protected and how there are still some legal hurdles before anything is really finalized. It's not like there is now a free-for-all to print unlicensed merchandise without penalty.

What will be interesting is how this affects the value of the license and how existing licensees choose to use these marks. Also, I wonder if people will boycott merchandise or manufacturers. Much has been made of wanting the team changing the name. But now maybe some pressure will be put on the merchandise side of it as well.

The name and logo are clearly insensitive. That wasn't the original intent at the time it was created, so there's no need to find fault here. But we live in a different world now and the name should be changed. It's the right thing to do. Washington Warriors with a modernized/appropriate version of the logo would be a good compromise.


----------



## Viper Graphics (Mar 28, 2009)

kimura-mma said:


> The name and logo are clearly insensitive. That wasn't the original intent at the time it was created, so there's no need to find fault here. But we live in a different world now and the name should be changed. It's the right thing to do. Washington Warriors with a modernized/appropriate version of the logo would be a good compromise.


Interesting you say that since the logo was created by an American Indian tribal artist for the ball team to assure it would properly, culturally and respectfully represent the "redskins". Funny how public opinion is so magnified by the press so they can get readership regardless of the accuracy of the stories told.... one poll said 80% of Indians polled had NO problem with the name or logo. just my 2 cents......I think the logo is not insensitive for it's intended purpose.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

My point is... the name and logo may not have been insensitive then, but it is now. And that should matter.

Ok, 80% of Indians that participated in that poll were not offended. But 20% were. We should just ignore them? That 20% still represents enough to tell us that something is wrong.

I'm not someone who is easily offended by things like this. Names like Braves, Chiefs and Warriors are ok. But names like Redskins, Redmen and Indians have a different tone. They cross a line in my opinion.

And keep in mind, the NFL wants to penalize players for using racial slurs on the field during play. So it seems hypocritical to go to great lengths to maintain racial sensitivity to certain groups while turning a blind eye to others.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

So it's now constitutional to have a separate set of laws for distasteful folks?


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> So it's now constitutional to have a separate set of laws for distasteful folks?


No, not at all. The USPTO has nothing to do with the constitution and/or laws.

It seems that you completely misunderstand the USPTO, laws, AND the constitution. 

The USPTO is responsible for registering or denying trademarks. If a mark is deemed offensive or "distatesful" as you put it, then they don't have to grant registration.

No one is saying that it's illegal, or having a separate set of laws, or ANYTHING at all to do with the constitution.

The law allows for the USPTO to deny "distastful" marks.


----------



## wormil (Jan 7, 2008)

Some people want to be offended; side effect of leisure time.


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

wormil said:


> Some people want to be offended; side effect of leisure time.


Agreed. I'm not easily offended in the least bit. I'm not offended by this. 

But, there are some people that are genuinely offended. And their feelings shouldn't be cast aside just because others "want to be offended".


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> If a mark is deemed offensive or "distatesful" as you put it, then they don't have to grant registration.


The Redskins were applying for a trademark? Laws are what give governments, and their agencies the power to alter peoples behavior. Laws have to be constitutional to be enacted. What we're really talking about is a retroactive penalization of corporation for poor taste. 

I don't agree with Bill Maher all that often, but he was right when he said it isn't against the law to be an a$$. 

One of the most famous undertakings of John Adams was his defending the rights of the unpopular. This is best put by him when he said; "The law will not bend 
to the wanton tempers of men. It preserves a steady, undeviating course."

Except now Our government is financially penalizing a Corporation based on their sense of good taste. If we are actually a market driven society, shouldn't that
be the job of the franchises sponsors?

So freedom of speech protects a Billionaires right to spend millions of dollars assassinating the careers of moderate politicians, but not a private company's right to have an only recently judged, off color name.


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> The Redskins were applying for a trademark? Laws are what give governments, and their agencies the power to alter peoples behavior. Laws have to be constitutional to be enacted. What we're really talking about is a retroactive penalization of corporation for poor taste.


Yes, and no. The constitution doesn't address every law. For instance, the constitution doesn't say that it's against the law for me to go over 70mph when I'm driving. 

What the constitution does do, is give my state the power to determine on its own what the max speed limit should be.

In this case, the constitution has given the Dept of Commerce the authority to let the USPTO decide what marks get registered, denied, and if it so chooses, to retroactively deny. So, the USPTO reversing its decision isn't making it constitutional to have a separate set of laws for "distasteful" folks. The constitution has given the USPTO the authority to take away registration if it sees fit. 

That's the part I think you're missing.




ShirlandDesign said:


> I don't agree with Bill Maher all that often, but he was right when he said it isn't against the law to be an a$$.


Right. And I agree with that as well. The problem is that you seem to think that the USPTO taking away the Redskins registration is somehow saying that the Redskins have broken the law and are doing something illegal. No one is saying that or even implying that. 

Taking away registration only means that the mark will no longer be registered by the USPTO...simple as that.


ShirlandDesign said:


> One of the most famous undertakings of John Adams was his defending the rights of the unpopular. This is best put by him when he said; "The law will not bend
> to the wanton tempers of men. It preserves a steady, undeviating course."


Again, there are no laws bending or changing. The USPTO already had and has the authority to do what's doing. 

Because THEY change their minds, doesn't mean that the law has changed.



ShirlandDesign said:


> Except now Our government is financially penalizing a Corporation based on their sense of good taste.


They aren't financially penalizing them. They still have the copyright to the design. And regardless of what happens with the registration, they still also have the common law trademark. 

So, no matter what happens with the mark, it still can't be infringed upon.



ShirlandDesign said:


> If we are actually a market driven society, shouldn't that
> be the job of the franchises sponsors?


Yeah, sure. But it's also the job of the USPTO to do it's due deligence to ensure that marks that are registered are held to a certain standard, even if that means revisited certain marks to make sure.




ShirlandDesign said:


> So freedom of speech protects a Billionaires right to spend millions of dollars assassinating the careers of moderate politicians, but not a private company's right to have an only recently judged, off color name.


Freedom of speech is different from "freedom of trademark registration".

You can't get any word, phrase, or name trademarked and try to claim freedom of speech. 

The USPTO has a job to do. But it seems your biggest disconnect comes by you thinking the USPTO doesn't have the authority that the law has already given them, or thinking that the USPTO taking away a registered trademark is somehow the government saying that it can't be used.

I would encourage you to study trademark a little more so that you can form a more informed opinion on the matter.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> The constitution doesn't address every law.


No, but every law has to, at least in theory be constitutional.



> What the constitution does do, is give my state the power to determine on its own what the max speed limit should be.


States rights also apply to matters of public decency.



> The constitution has given the USPTO the authority to take away registration if it sees fit.
> 
> That's the part I think you're missing.


Again the law that allows the USPTO to determine public taste is held to be constitutional, as you have said previously (although I haven't verified this) the constitution probably doesn't address this issue specifically. Also I think you equate having the right, and doing whats right. I'm not arguing their power, just their use of it given their mandate.



> *Mission*
> 
> The USPTO mission is to "maintain[] a permanent, interdisciplinary historical record of all U.S. patent applications in order to fulfill objectives outlined in the United States constitution".[5] The legal basis for the United States patent system is Article 1, Section 8, wherein the powers of Congress are defined.[6]
> It states, in part:
> ...





> The problem is that you seem to think that the USPTO taking away the Redskins registration is somehow saying that the Redskins have broken the law and are doing something illegal. No one is saying that or even implying that.


No, what I in fact *do* think is that a government agency is exceeding their mandate to apply pressure to it's citizenry in order to enforce some bureaucrats notion of political correctness.



> Again, there are no laws bending or changing. The USPTO already had and has the authority to do what's doing.


If this is true, why only the Redskins, seems a little less than even handed given how many sports teams have Native American Mascots, names and motifs.



> Atlanta Braves (MLB), originally Boston Braves, then Milwaukee Braves, plus all but one of their minor league affiliates:
> Danville Braves
> Gulf Coast League Braves
> Gwinnett Braves (formerly the Richmond Braves)
> ...


 etc, I got tired of draging and pasting.



> They aren't financially penalizing them. They still have the copyright to the design. And regardless of what happens with the registration, they still also have the common law trademark.
> 
> So, no matter what happens with the mark, it still can't be infringed upon.


They are using the threat of financial loss to apply pressure.



> Yeah, sure. But it's also the job of the USPTO to do it's due deligence to ensure that marks that are registered are held to a certain standard, even if that means revisited certain marks to make sure


Don't see it in their mission statement, but this is just a conversation for me, not a course of study. 



> Freedom of speech is different from "freedom of trademark registration


I think they were already registered, and if the owners intent was to convey the franchises ethos in their choice of branding, then yes it is a free speech issue as well as a free market issue. 



> But it seems your biggest disconnect comes by you thinking the USPTO doesn't have the authority that the law has already given them, or thinking that the USPTO taking away a registered trademark is somehow the government saying that it can't be used.


Your biggest disconnect is thinking might makes right. Again having the right and doing whats right are not the same thing. Speed traps, redistribution of wealth, allowing investment banks to write the legislation that governs them, allowing double digit profit increases quarterly for insurance companies while mandating every citizen to have medical insurance, debtors prisons, amongst many thing are apparently legal, and so then in theory constitutional. Are you O.K. with those things as well?



> I would encourage you to study trademark a little more


You got that part right. Usually though I just look to kimura-mma, Tim seems to know his stuff.


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> No, but every law has to, at least in theory be constitutional.
> 
> States rights also apply to matters of public decency.


Yes. But, you implied that there were separate laws for "distasteful". I'm only saying that the same laws are being applied. No one is creating anything new, or separate. The USPTO isn't calling saying that the Redskins broke any law, only that the USPTO is no longer going to register the mark.

That's different than having a separate law for distasteful folk.



ShirlandDesign said:


> Also I think you equate having the right, and doing whats right. I'm not arguing their power, just their use of it given their mandate.


In this particular instance I do. And here only because it doesn't keep the Redskins from using their mark.

The only question for me is "do they have the RIGHT to reverse THEIR decision to register a mark"? Yeah, they do. 

Is it RIGHT for them to reverse their decision? I don't know. But, again, if they choose, and give reason, then what makes it wrong?

They can call themselves whatever they want to call themselves, but the USPTO is under no obligation to register whatever they want to call themselves.

At the very least I would encourage you to read the article in the second link Tim posted initially. 

Here's a quote from it:



> The ruling to cancel the trademark registrations does NOT strip the team of its trademark rights or its ability to stop unauthorized parties from using the Redskins marks.
> 
> The Redskins have acquired what are called common law trademark rights. These are trademark rights that arise by virtue of the use of the mark in the marketplace. By "use", I mean things like jersey sales and the mark appearing in TV broadcasts and online.
> 
> And here's the key: common law trademark rights are enforceable and the Redskins could rely on them to stop a third party from making unauthorized use of its marks.


The USPTO deciding that they no longer want the mark registered really has no effect whatsoever for the Redskins.

Many companies, brands, etc. survive and even thrive without a trademark registration solely because of common law trademarks.

You're acting like there's this big travesty against the Redskins, when they get to keep going with business as usual if they so choose.



ShirlandDesign said:


> No, what I in fact *do* think is that a government agency is exceeding their mandate to apply pressure to it's citizenry in order to enforce some bureaucrats notion of political correctness..


Again, I disagree. There have been several cases where people wanted to trademark what the USPTO considers "scandalous" words or phrases, and the courts have upheld that the USPTO has the right to deny those registrations.

So, reversing their decision isn't any different. They have the right AND the authority to do just that. The courts have said as much, so they can't be exceeding their mandate.


ShirlandDesign said:


> If this is true, why only the Redskins, seems a little less than even handed given how many sports teams have Native American Mascots, names and motifs.


Probably because the USPTO considers a mark that solely refers to skin color to be "scandalous", and none of those other registered marks refer to any skin color.


ShirlandDesign said:


> They are using the threat of financial loss to apply pressure..


Again, because of common law trademarks, they are under no threat of ANY financial loss by losing the registration.



ShirlandDesign said:


> I think they were already registered, and if the owners intent was to convey the franchises ethos in their choice of branding, then yes it is a free speech issue as well as a free market issue. .


No, it's not, because the government isn't saying that they can't call the team the Redskins. The government is ONLY saying that the government won't allow the name to be registered.

They can continue calling it whatever they want to call it. How is it a freedom of speech issue if the USPTO isn't telling them to change the name???



ShirlandDesign said:


> Your biggest disconnect is thinking might makes right. Again having the right and doing whats right are not the same thing. Speed traps, redistribution of wealth, allowing investment banks to write the legislature that governs them, allowing double digit profit increases quarterly for insurance companies while mandating every citizen to have medical insurance, debtors prisons, amongst many thing are apparently legal, and so then in theory constitutional. Are you O.K. with those things as well?


 No, I don't think might makes right. 

But, if I want a certain entity to recognize me, then it only makes sense that I conform to their standards of recognition. And if their standards change over time, and I no longer fit their standards, I have a choice to change or move on.

The Redskins don't have to have a registered trademark in order to keep their name. That's what I think you're missing.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

Very few threats in life are as direct as "do this or else". Usually it's more like "for a small fee we can make your union problems go away". And usually far more subtle than that. The joke around the shop for a week was "have you got the Redskins screens burned yet?" We of course know better, but I'd bet a good number of knuckle heads don't. All demurs aside, one of the biggest problems with America today is our government gaming the system they establish for us. 

And I do care. 

Maybe I could have put it better, and maybe your interpretation was a bit literal, but I do know what laws are for, and I do have, to an extent, an understanding of our constitutional rights. And I see our rights rapidly diminishing through laws that have no benefit to the common good, government agencies exceeding their mandate, and legislation from the bench. 

By the way, I'm a voting member of the Cherokee Nation, CDIB and all. You should see the way Native American Governing bodies address the needs of their constituents. They work on things like jobs, education, housing and health. The Cherokee nation is actively courting big business, by offering tax incentives and land deals to relocate in our state. While our state government is trying to repeal Roe V Wade, redistricting to further polarize the congress, seeking stricter mandatory drug sentences, and experimenting with novel ways to execute inmates on death row. When the Indians take back the country from the fools who are in the process of pi$$ing it away, I doubt that they will spend much time worrying about the "Crackers" football franchise. 

p.s. I know subtlety is lost on a lot of folks, so for the record take that last bit about the Crackers in a humorous light


----------



## tippy (May 27, 2014)

ShirlandDesign said:


> If this is true, why only the Redskins, seems a little less than even handed given how many sports teams have Native American Mascots, names and motifs.


Braves, Blackhawks, Chiefs, Warriors - those aren't derogatory terms.

Adding the label 'Red Skins" is no different than using *******, Nip, ************, *** or the N-word.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> Braves, Blackhawks, Chiefs, Warriors - those aren't derogatory terms.
> 
> Adding the label 'Red Skins" is no different than using *******, Nip, ************, *** or the N-word.


All of the AIM (American Indian Movement, think Wounded Knee, Dennis Banks, Russel Means) members in college referred to themselves as "skins". I'm sure there are a lot of bitter Native Americans, I just haven't known any personally. In fact that's what I love the most about the Indians I've had as friends, they can find warmth and humor in nearly anything, including themselves.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> They are using the threat of financial loss to apply pressure.


What financial loss? They won't lose money by losing the trademark registration. And if they ultimately change the name, they stand to benefit financially from increased merchandise revenue.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> All of the AIM (American Indian Movement, think Wounded Knee, Dennis Banks, Russel Means) members in college referred to themselves as "skins". I'm sure there are a lot of bitter Native Americans, I just haven't known any personally. In fact that's what I love the most about the Indians I've had as friends, they can find warmth and humor in nearly anything, including themselves.


What is said within a circle of people can be very different than the same thing being said outside of that circle. Many African Americans refer to themselves as a derogatory term. Within that culture, it's a term of endearment or even a badge of honor. But outside that culture, it's very different. So yes, there are double standards. And it's not that hard to understand them. I don't doubt anything you have said. And I don't have a dog in this fight. It just seems like changing the name is the right thing to do. The team stands to benefit in the long run.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> What financial loss? They won't lose money by losing the trademark registration


The question is not financial loss, (people who buy knock offs and people who buy brand names at list are completely different markets).

The question is the threat of diminishing revenue by the active denial of government protection for the perceived benefit of safe guarding the public's sense of propriety.



> And if they ultimately change the name, they stand to benefit financially from increased merchandise revenue.


Saiz you. 

The company in question obviously see's it differently. How can your opinion possibly matter in someone Else's business decision?


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> I don't have a dog in this fight. It just seems like changing the name is the right thing to do. The team stands to benefit in the long run.


So, were back to being an a$$ is legal, and having the right is not equal to doing whats right. The big deal is when the organization (our government) who tells us how to live and die steps in for the sake of appearances.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> The question is not financial loss, (people who buy knock offs and people who buy brand names at list are completely different markets).


But the knockoffs exist even with the trademark registration. So what exactly is changing?

And even without the trademark registration, the team still has every right to protect their IP against infringement. So again, what exactly has changed?



ShirlandDesign said:


> The question is the threat of diminishing revenue by the active denial of government protection for the perceived benefit of safe guarding the public's sense propriety.


What diminishing revenue? You changed the phrase from financial loss to diminishing revenue but didn't answer the question. How is the team losing revenue by losing the trademark or even changing the name?



ShirlandDesign said:


> Saiz you.
> 
> The company in question obviously see's it differently. How can your opinion possibly matter in someone Else's business decision?


I haven't read anything from Daniel Snyder that stated financial issues as the reason he refuses to change the name. I heard him mention team tradition, but nothing about diminishing revenue.

Many teams have changed team names, logos and uniforms over the years. And the main reason is increased revenue.



ShirlandDesign said:


> So, were back to being an *** is legal, and having the right is not equal to doing whats right. The big deal is when the organization (our government) who tells us how to live and die steps in for the sake of appearances.


I'm not standing on the soapbox yelling for the team to change its name. It's just my opinion. And this thread is the first time I've ever had a conversation about the Redskins name. Take the racial issue out of it. Why not just change the name for the financial benefit of increased merchandise revenue? Because they shouldn't have to? Ok, that's the same argument people had for Donald Sterling keeping the Clippers...


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> So, were back to being an a$$ is legal, and having the right is not equal to doing whats right.


But, who are you to say what's right? That's the biggest issue I have with your argument.

Just because you believe that someone is being an *** doesn't make it so. You're right from the standpoint of having the right isn't equal to doing what's right. But, sometimes you can have the right AND do what's right even if some people think what you're doing is wrong.

There will always be arguments on different sides of issues. But, just because the USPTO decides to reverse field doesn't mean that they're wrong because you say so. 



> The question is the threat of diminishing revenue by the active denial of government protection for the perceived benefit of safe guarding the public's sense of propriety.


You keep talking about this, and I'd like for you to expound upon this a little more if you don't mind because I just don't see it.

Where is the diminished revenue? 

There is only 1 arm of the government denying protection. They still have copyright protection AND common law trademark protection.

I said it before, and I'll say it again...them losing registered status (which they haven't lost yet), will have no ill effect on their business. So, please tell us how it's suppose to work that they will have diminished revenue when they still have several protection options afforded to them by the same government that you claim is threatening their revenue.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> But the knockoffs exist even with the trademark registration. So what exactly is changing?


Whats changing is our governments blanket administration of protection under the law.



> How is the team losing revenue by losing the trademark or even changing the name?


It's the selective threat that's the issue.



> I haven't read anything from Daniel Snyder that stated financial issues as the reason he refuses to change the name.


I'm more than sure Mr. Snyder is an astute enough business man not to broadcast his business strategies.



> Why not just change the name for the financial benefit of increased merchandise revenue?


Again....Saiz you



> Ok, that's the same argument people had for Donald Sterling keeping the Clippers...


Donald got $crewed by a gold digging harpy while in the throes of dementia. The difference is that the NBA has the right to protect their brand.

The USA has no right to a brand.


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> The difference is that the NBA has the right to protect their brand.
> 
> The USA has no right to a brand.


But it does have the right to decide what marks get registered and what registered marks get to remain registered.

For some reason, you don't think they should have that right. 

Just because someone allowed the mark in the past, doesn't mean that it should just remain if the USPTO deems it scandalous.

The USPTO denies marks all the time that they deem scandalous. And I'm pretty sure that if this mark had never been registered, that no entity would be able to register such a name today, yesterday, or even 10 years ago.

It was just allowed to remain because it was the status quo. Now that they want to reverse field, you don't think it's right, but your arguments for it not being right are quite weak.

RDMS TMEP - Oct2012


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> For some reason, you don't think they should have that right.


No I've itemized the the reasons very specifically. Maybe you should try re reading them, and after some consideration, address them in detail.


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> No I've itemized the the reasons very specifically. Maybe you should try re reading them, and after some consideration, address them in detail.


I have. And I addressed them all together. Maybe you should read the end of my previous post.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> It was just allowed to remain because it was the status quo. Now that they want to reverse field, you don't think it's right, but your arguments for it not being right are quite weak.


Obviously I disagree. 

p.s. This has been a lively debate during which I tried to stick to the exchange of thoughts and ideas, rather than emotions and feelings. I did my best to avoid getting personal, hope I succeeded.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> Whats changing is our governments blanket administration of protection under the law.


Please explain in detail what protection the team is actually losing. Because I must be missing something.

You seem to think the team is actually losing its rights to the name. That isn't the case. They just don't have the public record. But they have everything else needed to prove their ownership of the mark. They can still use the name. And they will still win every court case they ever would have won with the trademark registration.



ShirlandDesign said:


> It's the selective threat that's the issue.


Saiz you.

If the team doesn't stand to lose money, then it's not a selective threat. It's an empty threat. I'm sure Mr. Snyder is an astute enough business man to understand that. You can give up the diminishing revenue theory. It's just plain wrong.



ShirlandDesign said:


> I'm more than sure Mr. Snyder is an astute enough business man not to broadcast his business strategies.


Oh ok. We're gonna play the "secret" diminishing revenue game. You don't know what they are. But perhaps they exist somewhere. And so do unicorns...



ShirlandDesign said:


> Again....Saiz you


Do some research on pro and college sports merchandise. Numbers go up when teams change logos. I've been in sports licensed merchandise for 11 years.

But ok, saiz me. More unicorns...



ShirlandDesign said:


> Donald got $crewed by a gold digging harpy while in the throes of dementia.


That's true. But cooler heads and prevailed and Donald got $2 billion. Only you would consider that a loss because of the gold digging harpy. Or unicorns or whatever secret theory you're on now...



ShirlandDesign said:


> The difference is that the NBA has the right to protect their brand.


And the Redskins still have the rights to theirs.



ShirlandDesign said:


> The USA has no right to a brand.


Very true. But the USPTO has the right to revoke a trademark registration. They are not revoking the name, just the public record. It still feels like you are not making the distinction.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> You seem to think the team is actually losing its rights to the name. That isn't the case. They just don't have the public record. But they have everything else needed to prove their ownership of the mark. They can still use the name. And they will still win every court case they ever would have won with the trademark registration.


No, what I think the team is loosing is the publics perception that the United States government has the brands back.



> If the team doesn't stand to lose money, then it's not a selective threat. It's an empty threat. I'm sure Mr. Snyder is an astute enough business man to understand that. You can give up the diminishing revenue theory. It's just plain wrong.


Again, perceptions play a role in reality.



> You don't know what they are. But perhaps they exist somewhere. And so do unicorns...


I certainly don't presume to know the financial strategies of ball club owners, or their unicorns.



> I've been in sports licensed merchandise for 11 years.
> 
> But ok, saiz me. More unicorns...


Yeah, are there a lot of unicorns in your line of work?



> Only you would consider that a loss because of the gold digging harpy. Or unicorns or whatever secret theory you're on now...


I didn't say he lost financially, but he obviously was not happy with being forced out of an activity he invested in heavily and greatly enjoyed. 



> And the Redskins still have the rights to theirs.


Yet with the perception of diminished protection under the law, and a big thumbs down from the United States government



> But the USPTO has the right to revoke a trademark registration. They are not revoking the name, just the public record. It still feels like you are not making the distinction.


Tim... your making me tired. If you still want to argue angels... unicorns dancing on the head of a pin it'll have to wait until later.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> Tim... your making me tired. If you still want to argue angels... unicorns dancing on the head of a pin it'll have to wait until later.


Nah, I'm done now. It's been fun...


----------



## Comin'OutSwingin (Oct 28, 2005)

ShirlandDesign said:


> No, what I think the team is loosing is the publics perception that the United States government has the brands back.


This makes no sense. Why would anyone care if the government has ANY brand's back?

They shouldn't have any brand's back. The USPTO is there to do a certain job a certain way. Part of that is what I linked to earlier...to decide what marks get registered and KEEP registration status. Part of that is deciphering what they call "scandalous matter". The perception of that matter can change over time.

But, having the back of a brand should be the least of what the government does. And as an employee of the federal government, I can tell you that I've never heard of any such thing...


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

It has Tim,

I'm just a mere pup trying to keep up with the big dogs. Agree, disagree, I always listen to what you have to say.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

Geez, I apologize in advance but just can't help posting this CNN op/ed

_*Editor's note:* Marc J. Randazza is a Las Vegas-based First Amendment attorney and managing partner of the Randazza Legal Group. He is licensed to practice in Arizona, California, Florida, Massachusetts and Nevada. The opinions expressed in this commentary are solely those of the author._
The Washington Redskins find themselves under (deserved) fire for their name, which many Native Americans and others find to be a racial slur. Previously the target of protests and opprobrium, the Redskins have now lost their federal trademark registration for the name, as it was deemed too disparaging to remain protected. There are two issue to consider here: one is technical and the other is one we should all find troubling.
The first: This case was about a trademark, and the primary purpose of trademark law is to protect the public so that the public can accurately know the source or origin of goods and services. But headlines that say the Redskins lost their trademark are inaccurate.
All they lost was their trademark registration, not the right to use the racist term to identify their team -- and that is a key point. In the United States, trademark rights flow from an organization using the trademark; technically, you don't need to register a trademark in order to have trademark rights. (In other countries, you need a registration). 

With its common law rights intact, the team is free to continue to call itself the "Redskins." Moreover, it can still sue you for selling counterfeit Washington Redskins gear, and it can still block someone from starting a Washington Redskins dodgeball team. The Washington Redskins still have trademark rights, and strong rights at that.
If the team owners still have rights in the trademark, why is losing the registration a big deal? What does a registration give you? It gives you a few statutory presumptions in the event that you go to court over enforcement of your trademark. It gives a presumption of ownership and validity. In simple terms, the cancellation only means that if there is a trademark infringement lawsuit, the Washington Redskins team is going to have to pay a bit more in attorneys' fees to win its case.
But nobody can seriously argue that Dan Snyder's football team is not the owner of the still-intact trademark rights, nor that the public associates his team with the racist name.
The second issue: There is something even more offensive than the team's name: The fact that this case happened at all. The decision, I believe, has First Amendment implications that we shouldn't ignore.
I do not care whether you like or dislike the Washington Redskins' name. I think it's a pretty dumb thing to call a football team. If Native Americans believe that "*******" is offensive to them, then it is. Most people agree that it is about as offensive as using any other ethnic slur. I respect their position and their argument. 
Nevertheless, here are my criticisms of this decision: Section (2)(a) of the Trademark Act bars the registration of any trademark that is "immoral" "scandalous" or "disparaging." In other words, a civil servant executing the registration is allowed to be the arbiter of morality. Do we really want that?
Trademarks propose a commercial transaction. When you see or hear a trademark, you immediately receive information in a short-hand way that communicates where the products come from, or what level of service you can expect. Trademarks are First Amendment protected expression. There should be no issue with limiting their use to mislead the public. After all, what point do they serve if they do not propose a truthful association with their owner? And what rational governmental purpose does it serve to deny a benefit to a business because it might be deemed "immoral" by someone?
And why are we even arguing the point? The government should not be in the business of deciding what is moral, immoral, or offensive. This section of the trademark act is a leftover from Victorian times, and is used now primarily to promote social agendas with coercive censorship.
To justify such censorship, the government must demonstrate that the harms it seeks to address are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree. In addition, the courts have found, such a restriction "may not be sustained if it provides only ineffective or remote support for the government's purpose."  These mandates are "critical," for otherwise "[the government] could with ease restrict commercial speech in the service of other objectives that could not themselves justify a burden on commercial expression."
In this case, what is the governmental purpose in depriving the Redskins of their trademark registration? Is it that the government is serving as a morality teacher? Is it choosing a favored position, and then enforcing it by only giving government benefits to companies that agree with that orthodoxy?
Do you trust any government to tell you what your morality should be? If so, do you trust this government to do that?
Remember, even if you're one of the well-intentioned many who think that the name is disgusting, do you want to surrender your First Amendment rights to the next group who might find your morality to be outside the norm? I do not. While I think that Dan Snyder should change the name of his football team, I think that the government should remain neutral in the matter.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

No need to apologize, John. I think it's a pretty interesting piece with some good info and insight.

I guess the government intrusion aspect of this issue doesn't really bother me because it doesn't really affect the bottom line legal status of the mark or the financial status of the team. If others don't agree with the USPTO's actions, that's cool. I get it. But I'm not one to get worked up over something that has more affect on perception than reality. And if the astute Mr. Snyder really cared about public perception, he would probably just change the name and get it over with. But I would say, by his actions thus far, he's more concerned with reality.

The thing is, I find the team sports branding aspect more interesting. Given the circumstances, I would embrace the opportunity to re-brand an entity like this and reap the financial rewards of it all.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

The apology was for beating a dead dog. 

The thing is America really is special but is getting less special in a hurry it seems to me. Those of us pushing wearable bumper stickers are in the business of selling perceptions for real currency (or sometimes accounts receivable). But your right, it is a business, not a vanity press, at least for some of us. 

As far as embracing a re branding opportunity, I can't help but think new Coke, but I applaud your lead from the front spirit, a pretty good character trait in an entrepreneur. 

As the Have's and Have not's continue to polarize, a level playing field is more and more vital. I guess my original point was that the founding fathers had a clear vision of government as a frame work to benefit the average Joe. One example of how that is changing is the Postal service raising the price of stamps to compensate for lost revenue due to Email, instead of downsizing, or diversifying the way a private business might. We used to be a Republic/Democracy, we have been proven academically now to be an oligarchy. 

The only way to put us back on the straight and narrow is a collective consciousness thru public forum.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

ShirlandDesign said:


> As far as embracing a re branding opportunity, I can't help but think new Coke, but I applaud your lead from the front spirit, a pretty good character trait in an entrepreneur.


New Coke failed because of the product inside the can, not because of the new logo on the can itself.

The team will continue to succeed because the NFL brand and business model are unstoppable. The TV money, sponsorship revenue, mobile app subscriptions, etc, have the NFL at a $9 billion industry and probably growing to $20 billion in the next few years.

I don't see how changing the team name and logo will go the way of New Coke. Do you really think changing the team name is going to result in lost revenues from tickets, luxury suites, concessions, tv, sponsorships, merchandise?

If so, I think you're underestimating the power of NFL marketing and merchandising.

Since April 1, the top selling jerseys in the NFL are Johnny Manziel (Cleveland Browns) and Michael Sam (St. Louis Rams). Amazingly, both players are going into their rookie year and have never played an NFL game yet. And more amazingly, both players were drafted into the league on May 8. Which means there were 0 sales of either jersey for the first 5 weeks of that time period. Which means there were so many sales following the draft that it tipped the balance so greatly in their favor to actually lead the list of jersey sales despite being available for 5 weeks less than every other player's jersey.

It goes to show the power of NFL marketing and merchandising and how reactionary NFL fans are in their support of favorite teams and players. I don't see how the Washington football team wouldn't immediately and overwhelmingly benefit from the marketing and merchandising of a new name and logo.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

On this subject it's your world boss.

New Coke was knee jerk, not experience driven. 

by the way, if you would care to share some of your marketing experience.... damn, I for one would consider it a gift


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

I've worked for a pro sports team and a major sports licensed manufacturer. Picked up some great experiences along the way. Some were learned the easy way and some were learned the hard way. But I've been very fortunate to work alongside some great people and a lot rubbed off.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

Mostly I read your knowledge of law, and that's great, but jigsaw puzzles are complex, and women are complicated. The juice, for me at least (being an art major in school) is the abstract. I for one would love to read an experienced view of how the abstraction of marketing meets the complexity of practical business necessity. Sounds like you could paint some broad strokes in a very strong way.


----------



## kimura-mma (Jul 26, 2008)

I'm afraid you're going way over my head. The abstract is abstract for a reason. Leave it there and focus on logic and practicality.


----------



## binki (Jul 16, 2006)

I am surprised this thread is still going on. If the team changes the name and/or logo the previous brand is worthless over time. If it stays they have legal recourse and more money than God. Either way there is no way to make a living off of this.


----------



## Viper Graphics (Mar 28, 2009)

Swithching gears .....how about the food truck in Port San Antonio that was banned because it's name was offending....Port of San Antonio Bans Food Truck Called Cockasian (VIDEO) | The Braiser


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

> Let’s not even go into the uncomfortably, racial stereotype-driven sexual implications of putting “cock” next to “Asian,”


Funny I was thinking chicken 

Puts El Pollo Locos in a whole new light...heyyyy, I'm jealous


----------



## smiley wattz (Dec 8, 2013)

Im surprised that this topic was in tshirt forums.  Now, Me being an American Indian who served 8 years in the US Navy doing two tours to Afghanistan take the word ******* offensive. just like a black guy will take the word ****** Offensive. Yes some of you may not see any offense to the word, but let me call you something that offends you, or do something that offends you and see how you enjoy it. If you are looking to get rich on the word ******* then make sure you get RICH on the word ****** while your at it. The name does not Honor me or anyone on this earth. The Picture of an Indian is not offensive to me, but the Word ******* IS. Ever wonder why American Indians were not considered citizens until 1924 and we shared the land with your ancestors. I hope they change the name, but the owner is clearly a douche bag.


----------



## smiley wattz (Dec 8, 2013)

N I G G E R is blocked out but ******* is not? ADMIN Needs to fix this ASAP!!!


----------



## freebird1963 (Jan 21, 2007)

Comin'OutSwingin said:


> Agreed. I'm not easily offended in the least bit. I'm not offended by this.
> 
> But, there are some people that are genuinely offended. And their feelings shouldn't be cast aside just because others "want to be offended".


The only ones "genuinely offended" are those with a agenda. Plain and simple.


----------



## freebird1963 (Jan 21, 2007)

tippy said:


> Braves, Blackhawks, Chiefs, Warriors - those aren't derogatory terms.
> 
> Adding the label 'Red Skins" is no different than using *******, Nip, ************, *** or the N-word.


A pacifist ******* might be offended by the term Warriors.


----------



## smiley wattz (Dec 8, 2013)

freebird1963 said:


> A pacifist ******* might be offended by the term Warriors.


So who are you calling a *******?


----------



## freebird1963 (Jan 21, 2007)

smiley wattz said:


> So who are you calling a *******?


anyone thats red i guess. Ever been out in the sun too long. ?
Read it again and a again till you get it. If you don't then stay up late and worry over it.

Oh and your comparing the word N I G G E R to ******* should win the award for stupidest forum comment of the year.


----------



## smiley wattz (Dec 8, 2013)

freebird1963 said:


> anyone thats red i guess. Ever been out in the sun too long. ?
> Read it again and a again till you get it. If you don't then stay up late and worry over it.
> 
> Oh and your comparing the word N I G G E R to ******* should win the award for stupidest forum comment of the year.


Typical Navy Guard Come back. So what your saying is that ****** is okay and I can call anyone a ****** with no problems right? Do you mind being called a ******? Or how about if someone called you a *******, ****, *******, Sand ******, *****, ****, Cracker, ***, or any derogatory term used to put another human being down?


----------



## freebird1963 (Jan 21, 2007)

smiley wattz said:


> Typical Navy Guard Come back. So what your saying is that ****** is okay and I can call anyone a ****** with no problems right? Do you mind being called a ******? Or how about if someone called you a *******, ****, *******, Sand ******, *****, ****, Cracker, ***, or any derogatory term used to put another human being down?


Quite frankly words don't bother me. I am more man than to be defined by a word. 

Again your reading comprehension is very sub elementary school so assume you served in the Army. They only get what the Marines and the other services reject.


Hágoónee’


----------



## smiley wattz (Dec 8, 2013)

freebird1963 said:


> Quite frankly words don't bother me. I am more man than to be defined by a word.
> 
> Again your reading comprehension is very sub elementary school so assume you served in the Army. They only get what the Marines and the other services reject.
> 
> ...


My reading comprehension is fine, your typing is what needs work. What you typed and what you probably meant to type did not come out the way it should have. If your more man than to be defined by a word than why be a Navy Guard? They are defined by their name, disrespect that and it's a fight.


----------



## ShirlandDesign (Nov 29, 2009)

First of all, any military, service is honorable and appreciated. Love them first responders also.

So, given the recent events in Missouri and Ohio, I have begun to rethink my beliefs about race, ethnicity, and social sensitivity. 

As a knee jerk reaction, anyone who robs a store and physically gives a law officer resistance has any amount of police restraint, up to an including deadly force coming to them. But this is not an isolated event, it's a pretty frequent occurrence. I'm certainly not racist enough to think these bad actors are unaware of the consequences of defying authority. A lot of African American writers are writing about the "talk". The point at which they tell their children that if they don't hold themselves to higher standard of behavior than a non minority, they may be targeted for intense scrutiny. And even if they don't get a formal lecture from a parent, I'm more than sure talk on the street about the issue is common.

Are we a racist society? Sure. Through every conversation in the media on the subject I have yet to hear about socioeconomic culture, just skin color. And the minorities themselves focus exclusively on race. The police have used deadly force over 2000 times on white actors over the past ten years. They have also used deadly force on 1100 African Americans over the same time period. Given that Whites outnumber blacks 5 to 1, blacks are 3 times more likely to be shot by a cop than whites. Is it because cops hate black people, or because blacks are disproportionately criminals? Or is it that black society, recovering from 500 years of slavery, rape, torture and murder are economically, spiritually, and socially harmed at a core level, and as such start from a place in life I can't even imagine, or maybe just don't want to. Statistically, I'm more than sure poor people are more prone to crime than advantaged folks. Desperate people do desperate things. 

And sure, Indians, (not the Mumbai variety, but Native Americans), got beat down as a society pretty damn hard also.

So, a little sensitivity is not too much to ask. Is the Redskins owner a douche bag? Probably not, probably just insulated from the kind of hurt a lot of minority's carry as a matter of course. 

Magic really put a great light on the issue when he said a lot of guys he knew wouldn't give the Clippers thing a second thought, but others he knew would be up all night with it.

The Redskins owner has the right to be insensitive, and minority's just simply are going to flinch when prodded in a sensitive spot.

Playing in a game that's rigged leads to apathy, and apathy to a lack of effort to make good choices, and that leads to Police shootings.


----------

