Malazan

It is about trademarks...the whole thing is about the trademark being revoked. I don't want it to end up that you can't trademark 'Dan & Dan's Gay Extravaganza' because it is offensive to people. I don't want people saying you can't 'Muhammad's Islam Grill' because people find it offensive. I think you need to think further about the possible exploitation of this action.

Stop with the straw man about whether or not it is offensive. The question is whether the USPTO should be the one pressuring businesses to change their name. The article posted above does a good job of explaining it: http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/06/20140620-072037.html

I'm not sure it's wise to piss off 2 of the biggest names in coaching who have large coaching trees throughout the league. Then add Rex to it, a guy whom Pettine's rolodex will have a lot of the same people in it...regardless of whether Pettine will be a good coach or not, that seems like an unnecessary hurdle to put in front of yourself.

You keep using this argument which is very dishonest. This thread is not about whether it is the right thing to do. The name should have been changed a long time ago. The thread is about whether the USPTO is an agency that should be pressuring businesses to 'do the right thing'. We have an oligarchy for government. It does not operate under the principles of a republic. http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

You managed to determine a lot about my knowledge of said law from that line that didn't mention anything about patent or trademark law. "I'm not saying you're dumb - far from it - but other posters process things very quickly"

It's wrong. The fact that people are offended is not a reason for the USPTO to step into it. It's a great reason for the NFL, the fans, etc to do so. No reason the USPTO should be pushing the issue.

You're right, it's not an argument against changing the name. It's an argument against the USPTO taking action. I notice you conveniently leave out the other examples. I guess 'News Whores' is ok with you.

Using the same logic the USPTO applied in the Redskins case, the NAACP and United Negro College Fund should be forced to give up their trademarks as well. And while not trademarked per se, I assume the State of Oklahoma will now be considering renaming itself. After all, Oklahoma means "Red Man" in Choctaw... Then there's FAG, a mark for "lubricating oils and greases." Yep. The mark is registered and is not pending cancelation. This is not offensive according to the USPTO. Stinky Gringo is the valid trademark for a type of premixed alcoholic cocktail. And one more direclty analogous to the Redskins: RedMan is a mark registered for chewing tobacco, complete with Indian logo. It is a national brand, and the mark, far from being canceled, has been renewed without a hitch. And then there's registered marks "NewsWhore", "Bitches Bash", "Creepy-Ass Cracka", and "Suck It", all of which enjoy good standing at the USPTO. But Redskins? No, that's offensive and has to go. The Redskins should be renamed, but the USPTO is not the appropriate place to try to legislate them into changing. It would be a bleak, dark place if we legislated whether or not people could use language someone deems offensive. Even if it is the majority that deems it offensive.

"I'm not saying you're dumb - far from it - but other posters process things very quickly"

They didn't deny an application

I don't think the patent office should be making decisions based on political or moral reasons.

Hey! Jake Locker has something to say about that!

Take a deep breath and hold...hold it...keep holding it....

Sad news for his debtors

Season can't come fast enough

Now if only they stop the stupid things like the security theatre and actually work on making us safer, we'll all be grand.

Seems like a contract ploy. Nothing more.

What happened to him covering actual news stories? I recall he had a piece awhile back that was not sports related that wasn't bad.

Houston looks pretty bad. I think Cleveland has the most potential for disaster drama though.

his prices have gone way up

Spikes can certainly talk...a...lot

I am all for this idea.

0-16 because of that shiz

I'm all for burning Agents, but the players drive the top dollar at the expense of everything else contracts. Look at the CBA being a prime example. They negotiated for top dollar caving on other issues and then have tried to litigate their way out of it since...the same thing happens on an individual basis. It is up to players to instruct their agents on what they want.

Well, whichever one loses...couldn't have happened to a nicer guy