US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[OCinBuffalo]

There are far more homophobes than native peoples.

Hold up: is everyone that supports traditional marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise, suddenly a homophobe?

[Pondslider]

Hold up: is everyone that supports traditional marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise, suddenly a homophobe?

 

I only support traditional marriage in which daughters are sold to much older men as soon as they are old enough to give birth for religious reasons.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Pondslider

[OCinBuffalo]

How about a little wager? Whoever wins the appeal process? I'll take the side of the USPTO decision, you take the Redskins. Whoever wins gets to choose the other's avatar for a month.

Do I sound like a sucker, even a tiny bit, to you? Let me reciprocate: How about you bet me on whether Snyder sues the hell out of everyone?

 

Let's understand this bet: You want me to bet on a government agency, having made a headline grabbing decision, purposely attracting attention to itself(and its budget), to run a straight up appeals process, in the light of media scrutiny, and find itself to be wrong...in the midst of the ongoing IRS, Benghazi, VA and Obamacare messes?

 

Are. You. High?

 

No. Sucker's bet, and the appeal will be irrelevant, anyway. I will wait for the lawsuit, which is probably headed to the SCOTUS, years from now. Like I said, I can't wait for your argument in front of the court. You are literally saying that Dan Snyder's business isn't entitled to equal protection, solely because you don't like its logos, which you say are offensive, and base that assertion on...because you say so, while being unable to prove the logo's intent to disparage? Good luck!

 

Somebody at USPTO thought it was a good idea to screw with Dan Snyder publicly, for reasons passing all understanding. Snyder: An owner who has repeatedly made bad decision after bad decision...based almost entirely on his ego? Two words: Adam Archuleta

 

Not smart. Everything we know about Snyder says he sues the hell out of everyone involved, personally as well. Perhaps somebody gets to him, and explains that the PR hit, etc., or, you know, decency, as in: changing the name is the decent thing. However, I can see Snyder saying "We've already taken the hit, screw you the name is great, get the lawyers, I wanna kick ass!"

 

in all cases, this isn't going away any time soon, so your bet is pointless. Even if, by some miracle, the USPTO finds itself to be wrong, something else will happen.

Is it that hard to see Snyder licking his chops tonight? He gets his chance to kick many asses, including yours, publicly, in court. There's a great chance he wins.

 

I don't see how he resists it.

 

I only support traditional marriage in which daughters are sold to much older men as soon as they are old enough to give birth for religious reasons.

Well, since selling of persons is illegal, sorry, but we can't abide that. That's the thing: you can try and be snarky, but in the end, we are a nation of laws.

 

You don't like laws, make new ones. You can't make new ones? Tough schit. It's your job to convince enough people to get those laws passed. If you can't do that, you don't get to run your agenda through some government agency.

 

Or, avail yourself of our legal system, which exists purposely to defend the rights of the minority from the majority.

 

Anything else is tyranny.

[Pondslider]

Well, since selling of persons is illegal, sorry, but we can't abide that.

 

Sad news. I guess we're all damned to hell.

[Hplarrm]

 

Hold up: is everyone that supports traditional marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise, suddenly a homophobe?

No, supporting traditional marriage does not make one a homophobe at all. However, opposing marriage equality does probably make that person a homophobe.

 

As a heterosexual, I insist on exercising my right to marry the woman I love (and fortunately for some reason she has agreed to be my wife for the last 23 years. Yet, though I have no interest in being married to a guy, I am also happy if a woman friend of mine finds love even if it with another woman or guy buddies of mine find love with another guy.

 

In no way does someone's choice of someone from the other sex as their life partner for religious or whatever reason make them a homophobe. it's one consenting adult's desire to intrude in the love-based (and increasingly recognized as legal by our courts)life partnership decisions of others that makes them homophobes.

[Rocky Landing]

Do I sound like a sucker, even a tiny bit, to you? Let me reciprocate: How about you bet me on whether Snyder sues the hell out of everyone?

 

You don't sound like a sucker. You sound utterly unhinged. But, I will bet you that Dan Snyder doesn't get a single civil lawsuit off the ground related to the USPTO ruling. What would be your time frame?

[Hplarrm]

 

 

 

in all cases, this isn't going away any time soon, so your bet is pointless. Even if, by some miracle, the USPTO finds itself to be wrong, something else will happen.

Is it that hard to see Snyder licking his chops tonight? He gets his chance to kick many asses, including yours, publicly, in court. There's a great chance he wins.

 

I don't see how he resists it.

 

 

 

 

I can see several reasons he might resist slogging through the courts:

 

1. His 31 fellow partners in the NFL.

 

I can see why you might want to bet on Snyder cause he is a gazillionaire. However, we see from real life experience that 31 gazillionaires can beat 1 pretty easy. When the rubber hits the road this issue will be decided not by anyone's judgment of who is right and who is wrong. It will be decided as many things are in this world by how does it impact the bottom line of the money that drives the process.

 

The money that drives the NFL is the big buck from selling the football product. For the 32 gazillionaires or groups that own NFL teams, whether 1 owner is upholding a tradition or insulting a race is a mere distraction. If (and it appears to be when given the recent decisions and kerfluffle on this issue) and it continues to distract from the true NFL message of selling the game.

 

It becomes my goal as a Native American leader interested in this issue not to target Snyder who appears to be a racist idiot whose mind I cannot change, but instead to be an irritant to his 31 partners to get then to lean on Snyder the way other NBA owners forced Donald Sterling out the league.

 

I doubt I can convince Snyder who is likely driven into a froth because someone else is telling him what to do. However, his fellow partners in the NFL don't give a rat's derriere about Redskin tradition.

 

If every team the Deadskins visit is plagued with a week of protest and bad press prior to the Redskin visit, I can pressure Snyder's peers to pressure him to shut up.

 

2. The real $ that control the NFL actually is not the 32 partners but actually the TV networks who gladly pay billions to the NFL to attract eyeballs so they can sell commercials.

 

The nets have not divided up the games yet, but I look at the timing of when this is gonna happen and announce that a national protest is going to be launched first time the Redskins are in a primetime game. I also announce or insinuate that the first network which ends up with a Redskins primetime game is going to be a target for action of mine.

 

I am going to demand stuff from that network like agreeing to give me a few minutes of air time in conjunction with this game to provide a Native American perspective on the name.

 

I also threaten to potentially launch a boycott of that network if they do not treat me nice or potentially a boycott of products advertised during the first Deadskin primetime game.

 

In general I want to force a network to give me some valuable air time and threaten their money. If I time this correctly before the NFL announces the schedule I create a circumstance where none of the nets want to be the loser getting the short straw to show the Deadskins in primetime.

 

3. One of the best examples of the end of the individual team owner as king and the league as a whole ruling the day was the CBA dispute with the NFLPA where union head Gene Upshaw dictated that the players were going to get 60%+ of the total receipts rather than a portion of the designated gross.

 

The owners not only acknowledged the players were their partners, but in fact they demanded and got a vast majority of the total take. Folks like Ralph objected to this, but Jerry Jones/Snyder/ and even Tagliabue forced Ralph to take the money and run.

 

As a tribal leader I would go to the NFLPA and ask them for their assistance in getting the NFL to acknowledge people of color rights. My guess is that that the predominantly people of color NFLPA will at least give me a sympathetic hearing. Again, in the real world we have already seen the NFLPA rise up to discipline the owners over their proposal to have the racist commenting Rush Limbaugh as a prospective owner. If the NFLPA agrees to tell the nfl to jump on a racial issue my guess is they would simply ask how high

 

4. Snyder might lose an appeal. Yep, he does have a bunch of money so he can hang in there if he wants. Yes, you might think he is totally right on the merits, However, the simple statistical fact is that most appeals fail. Without regard to anyone's sense of the quality of the argument, Snyder faces an uphill battle he may win but he may not (in fact the appeal will be settled not on the quality of the moral argument but instead on whether there is some legal issue that prompts reversal. By losing before the determiner of fact (the lengthy patent process) Snyder now must base his arguments on a legal process violation. Without regard to what you feel is right the chances of appeal make this far from a slam dunk

I think the tribes are in a far superior political position on this fight.

[Rocky Landing]

 

Let's understand this bet: You want me to bet on a government agency, having made a headline grabbing decision, purposely attracting attention to itself(and its budget), to run a straight up appeals process, in the light of media scrutiny, and find itself to be wrong...in the midst of the ongoing IRS, Benghazi, VA and Obamacare messes?

 

 

I will say this: You have my admiration for somehow pulling Benghazi into this! And, without a shred of satire, no less. Bravo!!!

[Kemp]

The last appeal took 4 years to conclude, so 4 more years of Redskins... 4 more years of whining about the "disparaging" name....

 

America is turning very soft.... congratuations. Pretty soon, the government will tell you what you can eat, can drink, etc for X reason or someone got offended.

 

Glad I'm older so I don't have to spend more time in THAT America.

 

Get off my lawn.

[Kemp]

 

Words? Ok. Apparently you are confusing the word "can't" with "won't" or "don't".

 

You can't. That's clear. 3 posts of 0 substance from you.

 

Let's try for 4!

 

Buddy, I hate to break it to you: but when any government agency, especially a government agency, moves against a private business, way outside it's purview, like this: it better have it's legaleze 100% perfect, because the courts will always lean towards the business. Not only is the USPTO way out of bounds here, it has specifically stated that this move is predicated 100% on it being "offensive"...and no other reason. Christ, at leas if they could prove some infringement, or using the likeness of Indians without their consent..something.

 

But, they didn't. They said "offensive and ONLY offensive" = Curb Stomp in court.

 

The USPTO vacates patents/TMs for things like "stealing somebody else's work", or, "ultimately based on unicorn farts". It's entire claim is based on exp<b></b>ression it deems to be offensive. That IS limiting free speech, by friggin definition. Period.

 

Again this is not about what is right or wrong. Of course Redskins is a bad thing to name a team. I knew that when I was in 2nd grade, and said so, repeatedly.

 

However, we don't run our country based on what you think is right and wrong(thank God). We don't run it on what I think is rigth or wrong(thank God, because that's too much work for me)

 

We run it based on what is equitable.

 

Vacating these TMs is not equitable, and thus, will get blown out in a court.

 

Show me where in that law it says they can vacate a patent because it is "offensive". Show me where in that law the standards for vacating a patent for any reason are clearly specified.

 

Come on man. You screwed the pooch with the "government" as "Congress" thing...relative to the Commerce Clause. Own it. Move on.

 

Show me any legal precedents(might want to study up on Porn, Larry Flynt, Hustler and the Supreme Court. The 80s. The moral majority. Big hair, and the fact that both the Moral Majority and Hustler models both had big hair! Well, if you want a laugh. ) that supesede the gallons of legal precedents that defend things I consider to be "wrong", "disgusting", etc. But, what I consider wrong is no standard.

 

Moreover, what you consider offensive, and wrong....doesn't matter! I know, it's difficult to find out that your "likes", actually don't count, when it comes to Free Speech. You're used to them counting. Most people are.

 

Your education is your responsibility. I'm merely trying to help you out. Running around here linking to wiki is not getting it done.

 

Patent law is no longer a real law, presuming it ever was. Someone close to me invented something about 15 years ago that every single person here uses every day. Google tried to come up with an alternative product, but repeatedly failed, so they blatantly stole the patent. My friend sued. During discovery, emails from within Google were placed into evidence that state they are breaking the patent.

 

The courts ruled in favor of Google, to the shock of all patent attorneys. Patents are rigged, much like everything else.

[Beerball]

You made the point, not me. I simply gave you a reason.

 

DC Tom, on 19 June 2014 - 06:40 PM, said:

 

And before you do answer that question, remember that far more people are offended by "gay marriage" than are by "Redskins."

 

 

Hold up: is everyone that supports traditional marriage, on religious grounds or otherwise, suddenly a homophobe?

Is that what I said?

[Captain Caveman]

I specifically asked "show me where in THAT LAW" meaning the law you referenced in your wiki link above, that refers to the establishment of the USPTO.

 

Now, you have a different law, the Lanham Act? Well, at least we've moved on from "government can regulate commerce"...to recognition that it actually requires a law from Congress, upheld by the Supreme Court, and signed by the Executive, which is progress, but....

 

....which has quite literally NOTHING to do with this. As, it's intent is to protect the rights of "persons" living or dead from being included into something they didn't sign up for. Like me, digging up Ralph Wilson, taking a picture of him, and creating "Dead Ralph Craft Beer" and slapping his picture on it, and applying for a trademark.

 

Persons absolutely means "private citizen", like Bob Smith. Persons does not mean "large group of people", like a bunch of pukes, who are so weak that they require constant external validation of their character, because it's not strong enough to self-validate, hence they move from thing to thing, calling it offensive, and then self-congratulating for being offended by thing du jour.

 

Moroever, where is the contempt or disrepute? Naming an NFL team Redskins, is the opposite of contempt. You don't name your team "The Cheektowaga Douchebags", unless you want to make fun of the town. The Redskins aren't interested in disparaging Washington DC, nor are they interested in disparaging Native Americans. In fact, every single bit of behavior shows the polar opposite: their team name recognizes the power of the name, just like all of teams that were named around the same time: the Bears, Lions, Giants, etc.

 

Thus, application of this law in this instance makes 0 sense. And if you can't PROVE intent to disparage Washington DC, or Native Americans? This is over.

 

Again, I get why Redskins is a bad name. Again, the first time I said so was in 2nd grade.

 

But, we can't just run around subverting the Constitution, or bastardizing laws, because we can't get our way.

 

You started out with free speech, ignoring several people who have repeatedly mention that there is not limitation on free speech, since there is no ruling that says the Redskins can't use the name, only that it should not have been trademarked. Now everyone can use the name, that's free speech.

 

You criticized my use of government to discuss the matter (as opposed to Congress), ignoring that 1. Congress is a part of our Government and 2. Congress has established other offices of government to regulate commerce, including the USPTO. Yet you throw around the words patent and trademarks as if they are the same thing.

 

You ask to see precedent, a law, and the specific sections of said law where causing offense is grounds for not granting a trademark. I provided a reference to said law, the specific language in the law, and an article with several instances of precedent, including where no intent to offend is present, as is presumable in this case. You made up some nonsense about how it's a different law and I can't just do whatever I damn well please, and that I need to prove intent. I don't see how the fact that this is a different law somehow makes it less legal. I'm sure with your excellent mind and education you will find a way to disagree. The precedent shows that intent does not need to be proven, only that the trademarked name could reasonably be considered to :

 

Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute

[JPS]

Quick - If someone said the Redskins are staying in your hotel, would you look for native americans or football players?

 

The Redskins don't need the federal registration to sue the pants off anyone who uses their name or logos. Just because they're not on the federal registry does NOT mean the team forfeits their ownership. They still have the same commercial rights they had before and can expect exclusive rights to market Redskins gear or a very successful day in court.

[billsfan1959]

The latter. A trademark has been issued. Due process alone requires....process.

 

You can't just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive, which is what the USPTO did. Did they even have a hearing? There's an appeals process. What is being appealed? A decision made by whom, and what was that process?

 

This is yet another example of what happens when a government becomes lawless.

 

The USPTO certainly has the right to reject any patent application which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality. While there may be no specific USPTO regulation addressing vacating a patent, that has already been issued, for offensiveness, it certainly does not preclude the USPTO from doing so.First, your assertion that you just can't "just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive" is wrong and a little simplistic. Civilized societies evolve. Part of that evolutionary process is the recognition that views, behaviors, and even laws that were once deemed acceptable can subsequently be deemed unacceptable, offensive, and wrong. The history of this country is replete with such redresses. Second, your argument that their decision is lacking in due process or is "lawless" is just not a solid argument. There was a hearing and evidence was presented indicating that the name could be deemed offensive. The USPTO agreed and then voided the trademark. They did not preclude Snyder from using the name as much as, or in any way, he wants. The USPTO simply did what is well within their purview to do. Snyder, et al, have every opportunity to appeal the decision. That is due process - a fundamental fairness to both sides in the process. I see nothing here that suggests otherwise.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I will say this: You have my admiration for somehow pulling Benghazi into this! And, without a shred of satire, no less. Bravo!!!

 

The USPTO certainly has the right to reject any patent application which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality. While there may be no specific USPTO regulation addressing vacating a patent, that has already been issued, for offensiveness, it certainly does not preclude the USPTO from doing so.First, your assertion that you just can't "just wake up one day, and decide something is offensive" is wrong and a little simplistic. Civilized societies evolve. Part of that evolutionary process is the recognition that views, behaviors, and even laws that were once deemed acceptable can subsequently be deemed unacceptable, offensive, and wrong. The history of this country is replete with such redresses. Second, your argument that their decision is lacking in due process or is "lawless" is just not a solid argument. There was a hearing and evidence was presented indicating that the name could be deemed offensive. The USPTO agreed and then voided the trademark. They did not preclude Snyder from using the name as much as, or in any way, he wants. The USPTO simply did what is well within their purview to do. Snyder, et al, have every opportunity to appeal the decision. That is due process - a fundamental fairness to both sides in the process. I see nothing here that suggests otherwise.

Whoah, whoah, whoah, smart guy. Way to continue to distract us from the Benghazi debacle.

[billsfan1959]

Whoah, whoah, whoah, smart guy. Way to continue to distract us from the Benghazi debacle.

 

That is f'n funny...

[ExiledInIllinois]

They got off on a technicality a decade ago. I wonder if Danny Boy has any Houdini left in him?

[DC Tom]

You made the point, not me. I simply gave you a reason.

 

That's not the point I was making. The point I was making was that, if you're going to judge strictly by "people are offended," you are going to run into having that same judgement used with respect to other issues.

 

So you'd (the general "you," not the specific) better damn well clear up your definition of "offensive" before it blows up in your face.

[Pondslider]

For years the defense of the name was basically people talking about how their best friend the Native American didn't care about the name and said most Native Americans don't care about the name.

 

Now since the ad aired during the NBA Finals there is conclusive evidence from one of the biggest Native American organizations that many many Native Americans do care about the name very much.

 

And now it's been changed to bull **** "Freedom!" or "It's not that offensive!" or my favorite "Fix everything else that is remotely offensive in society and then come back and talk about the name." arguments.

 

I wish people would just say they don't care about Native Americans or what they want. At least that would be honest.

[billsfan1959]

So would I, frankly...but those aren't the arguments that are being made. People are discussing a vague concept of "offense," and giving completely amorphous definitions of it within the context. Beerball's arguing that "people" have "stood together and complained," though all the people I've seen "stand together" and complained are almost universally NOT Native American (I really couldn't give a **** if Tim Graham decides to be offended on behalf of Native Americans he's probably never even talked to). You've got several people justifying "offense" on the completely salacious myth that it's a genocidal reference to scalp bounties. And Campy steps in and offers that the offended party decides "what they're offended by," which is nothing more than an artful and cowardly dodge of the actual question he was asked: who determines "Redskins" is offensive?

 

Not who determines they're offended by the word, but who determines the word itself carries the innate property of BEING offensive? How many "aggrieved parties" does it take before a word is deemed offensive? Campy implies one. Beerball implies a group much smaller than a plurality, and invokes an even vaguer notion of "what's right". Tim Graham implies it doesn't even matter, as long as someone thinks someone else should be offended. Judging by the USPTO's lack of action against other presumably offensive trademarks, they determine offensiveness strictly on how much media attention it gets. How do you actually determine the word is offensive? Until you manage to answer that question, most of this discussion is moot.

 

And before you do answer that question, remember that far more people are offended by "gay marriage" than are by "Redskins."

 

Offensiveness is a vacillating standard on both personal and societal levels and defining it has always been, and remains to be, a completely subjective process. As it should be. There can be no absolute (and, therefore, rigid) definition of something that, by its very nature, requires room for growth and change as human beings in regard to such things as tolerance, respect, decency, etcetera. To ask for a definition that is concrete in its rigidity before accepting whether or not something can be viewed as offensive is nothing more than intellectual sleight of hand. It gives the appearance of being reasonable when it is not. You are saying, “I will find it offensive when you prove to me in unequivocal terms how it is offensive. Until then, all of your arguments are moot because they are simply vague and amorphous.” - all the while knowing such unequivocal terms do not exist.

 

Personally, the concept of offensiveness is not so vague as to preclude me from believing that a term that refers to an entire population of people by the color of their skin should fit somewhere within that concept.

You have demanded that those that feel this way provide an unambiguous process for determining offensiveness. I do not believe such a thing can exist. However, let me make you this offer: Why don’t you provide your definition of offensiveness, or what you think the definition should be, and I will try to structure an argument based solely on that definition as to whether or not the term “Redskins” is offensive?