62 replies to this topic

[Thrash]

Yet another example of government gone wild:

 

http://www.cbsnews.c...-registrations/

[Rogal Dorn]

it doesnt matter. it's been done before and they have all been overturned. I dont care one way in the debate.

However, I often ponder how often a team would last if it were named the "Whiteskins" or "Blackskins"

[Haflinger]

A note: the linked article is incorrect. It is possible for an unregistered trademark to get full trademark protection. All the USPTO ruling means (if it survives review) is that the trademark will be unregistered, not that it will stop being a trademark.

 

Of course Cantwell is even worse: she calls it a patent. That's patently absurd.

 

The CBS News article also seems to think the trademark office is in the business of regulating companies selling pork rinds. All it handles is the registration of marks, it doesn't forbid anyone from selling anything.

[Redezra]

I don't understand the patent office.... so I'm confused as to what's going on.

[*Anastasia]

A note: the linked article is incorrect. It is possible for an unregistered trademark to get full trademark protection. All the USPTO ruling means (if it survives review) is that the trademark will be unregistered, not that it will stop being a trademark.
 
Of course Cantwell is even worse: she calls it a patent. That's patently absurd.
 
The CBS News article also seems to think the trademark office is in the business of regulating companies selling pork rinds. All it handles is the registration of marks, it doesn't forbid anyone from selling anything.

 
American news at its finest.
 

I don't understand the patent office.... so I'm confused as to what's going on.

The simple explanation is that a trademark (or trade-mark) is a given phrase, icon, color set (this is more properly trade dress, but regardless), logo, or the like that a company or individual uses to identify itself and the products it sells. Anyone using any such mark, and declaring it as theirs, automatically gains legal protection for their use of that mark (provided they were the first to do so, of course). Such a declaration is usually made by using the ™ or ℠ symbol next to the mark (in Canada, at least, the French superscript ^MC is also commonly used, but it has no Unicode point, and there's not even a superscript capital 'C' in Unicode ).

In the United States, and I presume many other countries, you can gain additional protection for your trademarks by registering them with the government—in this case, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. When you do this, the USPTO does a search of its records to ensure you are the first one to register the mark, and you gain additional statutory damages in court if your trademark is infringed, presumably because it removes the defense that an infringing party may have used your trademark unknowingly. You also get the ability to denote your trademark using the ® (in French, ᴹᴰ) sign, which does nothing except perhaps convince some potential infringers that your trademark is more 'official' and should therefore be taken more seriously.

As Haflinger pointed out, this basically strips the Washington Redskins of that additional protection, which may—but probably won't—make it more difficult for them to pursue legal claims against counterfeiters and what not. It's really a lot more symbolic than anything, but it's a good move regardless.

[Ellis]

Wow, that crazy government, stopping people being racist. Next they'll be kicking down your doors and sending you off to the FEMA death camps, no doubt.

[Thrash]

Umm, show me where any Native Americans were complaining. Hint: they weren't.

[*Anastasia]

Umm, show me where any Native Americans were complaining. Hint: they weren't.
 
What about the Kansas City Chiefs?

Um, did you miss all the news coverage about this ad broadcast by the National Congress of American Indians?



How is that not complaining?

'Chief' is not derogatory. 'Redskin' unambiguously is. No one would support this bullshit if it were called the Washington Niggers, and no one should be supporting it now.

[Thrash]

Yeah, I must've missed all that, because the only things I saw were pictures of proud Native American Redskins fans. But, then again, I didn't seek out much information on it.
 

If you did notice, I had edited my post during your reply to remove the Chiefs thing.

 

and honestly, as someone who's 42 years old, I've never ever heard anyone call Indians a Redskin. I've seen reference to that as the color of their skin, as the Asians are yellow, etc...

 

how about the Yankees? Derogatory term used by the south to refer to the north.

 

How about the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo.

[Redezra]

 
American news at its finest.
 
The simple explanation is that a trademark (or trade-mark) is a given phrase, icon, color set (this is more properly trade dress, but regardless), logo, or the like that a company or individual uses to identify itself and the products it sells. Anyone using any such mark, and declaring it as theirs, automatically gains legal protection for their use of that mark (provided they were the first to do so, of course). Such a declaration is usually made by using the ™ or ℠ symbol next to the mark (in Canada, at least, the French superscript ^MC is also commonly used, but it has no Unicode point, and there's not even a superscript capital 'C' in Unicode ).

In the United States, and I presume many other countries, you can gain additional protection for your trademarks by registering them with the government—in this case, with the United States Patent and Trademark Office. When you do this, the USPTO does a search of its records to ensure you are the first one to register the mark, and you gain additional statutory damages in court if your trademark is infringed, presumably because it removes the defense that an infringing party may have used your trademark unknowingly. You also get the ability to denote your trademark using the ® (in French, ᴹᴰ) sign, which does nothing except perhaps convince some potential infringers that your trademark is more 'official' and should therefore be taken more seriously.

As Haflinger pointed out, this basically strips the Washington Redskins of that additional protection, which may—but probably won't—make it more difficult for them to pursue legal claims against counterfeiters and what not. It's really a lot more symbolic than anything, but it's a good move regardless.

 

Wow. This is an amazing explanation and now it all makes sense. :3

 

Wow, that crazy government, stopping people being racist. Next they'll be kicking down your doors and sending you off to the FEMA death camps, no doubt.

 

 

Yup. It's the Majestic 12 I tells ya

[*Anastasia]

If you did notice, I had edited my post during your reply to remove the Chiefs thing.

Forever getting ninja'd.

 
How about the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo.

Addressing this out-of-order because I want to put a greater focus on your other comment. From a brief glance at the Wikipedia article, it does look like there's a strong Native interest in the issue. The NCAI's campaign linked above does seem to be focused on the Redskins, but also makes reference to other 'harmful "Indian" sports mascots,' so I'd not be surprised to see the Indians' mascot brought up if this keeps gaining traction.

Admittedly, though, it's not an issue I've heard a lot about, since similar campaigns here tend to focus on the Edmonton Eskimos, and the Redskins issue has only more recently come to my attention because of the sudden interest the media's taking in it.
 

 
how about the Yankees? Derogatory term used by the south to refer to the north.

Now, this idea intrigues me, primarily from an outsider's point of view, because I'm honestly not sure what the connotations of 'Yankee' are stateside today. Is it considered a derogatory or offensive term by northerners such as yourself? I've never really thought about it, which... I suppose is an odd thing, considering that here in Canada, it is used in a somewhat derogatory manner to refer to all Americans, even Southerners, usually (in my experience, anyway) in reference to the perception of cultural, economic, or political dominance by the US over Canada. When NRDC purchased HBC, for example, headlines proclaimed, 'Yanks Buy The Bay.'

From another perspective, though, part of why I'd never consider the implications of calling a sports team 'the Yankees' is probably because the most prominent (or perhaps only?) team by that name is the New York Yankees, which is in a northern city. So I guess with an issue like that I'm less sure whether there are relevant stakeholders who would actually be concerned by such a name being used, and without further information, I'd really have to withhold judgment.

[Thrash]

I'm just of the impression if you're going to get rid of one thing that's offensive, you better get rid of them all. You can't pick and choose. The Cleveland Indians mascot is way worse then the Redskins name.

 

Yankee is not offensive to me, because nothing really offends me, but I can imagine there are some who would be. Just as if a team was called the Confederates, I'm sure it'd upset some people.

[Thrash]

Here's an interesting take on it:

 

http://www.miamihera...is-ticking.html

[Justavictim82]

Yeah, I must've missed all that, because the only things I saw were pictures of proud Native American Redskins fans. But, then again, I didn't seek out much information on it.

If you did notice, I had edited my post during your reply to remove the Chiefs thing.

and honestly, as someone who's 42 years old, I've never ever heard anyone call Indians a Redskin. I've seen reference to that as the color of their skin, as the Asians are yellow, etc...

how about the Yankees? Derogatory term used by the south to refer to the north.

How about the Cleveland Indians mascot, Chief Wahoo.

I am an Indians fan and understand that Wahoo needs to go. The ownership group in Cleveland has been slowly phasing him out as the official logo in favor of a block C. Wahoo is just as offensive to native Americans as the name 'Redskins'. Every year there is a protest of the logo for the home opener. As a businessman, Dan Snyder (the owner of the Redskins) should want to distance himself from the negative publicity because it hurts his brand. That is all I am going to really say on the subject.

[Haflinger]

Umm, show me where any Native Americans were complaining. Hint: they weren't.

They made both applications to the Patent and Trademark Office.

The first group applied in the 90s, and won a decision at the PTO level in 1999 which then got overturned by the courts on procedural grounds. This second group was formed to deal with the courts' objection, and applied in 2006. It took until 2013 for the PTO to give them a hearing, which is shameful. The PTO is massively overworked and has an infamous backlog.

 

American news at its finest.

To be fair, this is a general problem with journalism. It's very rare for a journalist to have any kind of legal training whatsoever and journos usually can't afford to keep lawyers on staff. So they make often horrendous mistakes.

It's a problem in general with journalistic reporting of specialized fields, but it comes up most often with reporting on legal and scientific events because most journalists don't report much on, say, the engineering of bridges.

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Thrash, native Americans have been complaining about the Redskins name and logo for decades.  But good job jumping to conclusions based on your own uninformed assumptions.  Fox News has trained you well. 

 

Seriously, though, it's an offensive name, made worse by the fact that it's home team of the nation's capital.  It's well past time for it to change.

[Ellis]

Thrash, native Americans have been complaining about the Redskins name and logo for decades.  But good job jumping to conclusions based on your own uninformed assumptions.  Fox News has trained you well. 

 

Seriously, though, it's an offensive name, made worse by the fact that it's home team of the nation's capital.  It's well past time for it to change.

 

Y'know, this whole time I assumed it was Washington the State. Not that it really makes a difference, I'm just surprised somehow.

[Rogal Dorn]

I wonder how long until the Cleveland Indians change their name as well.

There's an entire wikipedia page dedicated to the native american mascot controversy... https://en.wikipedia...cot_controversy

[ᗅᗺᗷᗅ]

Y'know, this whole time I assumed it was Washington the State. Not that it really makes a difference, I'm just surprised somehow.

 

Washington state's NFL team are the Seattle Seahawks.  American sports teams are usually named after cities.  The one big exception that jumps out are the New England Patriots.  As far as I know no major sports teams are named after a state (the California Angels used to be, but they changed their name to the Los Angeles Angels at Anaheim, an awkward mouthful).

 

EDIT:  I thought of two, the Indiana Pacers (basketball) and the Jersey Devils (hockey).  There might be a few others I'm forgetting.

[Rogal Dorn]

Washington state's NFL team are the Seattle Seahawks.  American sports teams are usually named after cities.  The one big exception that jumps out are the New England Patriots.  As far as I know no major sports teams are named after a state (the California Angels used to be, but they changed their name to the Los Angeles Angels at Anaheim, an awkward mouthful).
 
EDIT:  I thought of two, the Indiana Pacers (basketball) and the Jersey Devils (hockey).  There might be a few others I'm forgetting.

professional sports teams* i feel it's an important distinction since college sports... yeah.

Also. I would love it if the redskins changed to this...



lawl