US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[Pneumonic]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/archives/sunnews/straighttalk/2014/06/20140620-072037.html

[DC Tom]

I understand that too... But Thrasher, and Reds is comical. It is like saying the Snapple Ice Tea bottle is offensive because it has a slave ship on it. It is just flat out ridiculous to compare it with redskin. Even Yankees is ridiculous. When has redskin even remotely entered the relm of Yankee or Fighting Irish?

 

Its like Mill said... Shameful. Arguing to just argue. You aren't even being reasonable.

 

IT WAS YOUR DEFINITION OF "OFFENSIVE," YOU IDIOT. "Reds" is as offensive by the measure you provided.

 

I'm not arguing just to argue. I'm arguing to demonstrate the capricious ambiguity of this issue. Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful. You're the only one that gave any soart of an objective measure...and it still sucked.

[RuntheDamnBall]

(2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

It's really not. You are so sure of your own morality, but so were many committers of genocide. If anything, it should make you reevaluate your own moral convictions.

You mean like when American settlers committed genocide against the Indians, I mean Redskins, while claiming the moral high ground?

[Malazan]

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

[26CornerBlitz]

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.sunnewsne...620-072037.html

 

You mean this "straw man" that is part of the consideration of whether a TM should be granted or revoked?

 

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

[FireChan]

You mean like when American settlers committed genocide against the Indians, I mean Redskins, while claiming the moral high ground?

 

That's exactly right.

[Beerball]

We sure do live in a republic. You know what that republic should have no say in? What someone does with their private business.

 

 

 

I can give you some examples of a couple government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide if that'll make my point seem a little less cold.

They didn't do the right thing, did they?

 

How many lives are at stake here? Keep tossing the mud.

 

Then, sit back and consider that those leaders who were doing nothing right were allowed to act in part because of people not wanting to push their morality on someone else. (does that phrase sound familiar?)

 

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'.

 

What were the prior 3-4 threads with the same people responding about? Should I pull some quotes from those?

 

Please don't try to tell me that this is about trademarks.

[RuntheDamnBall]

I am just happy that now there is finally competition to see who can make the best Redskins apparel and merchandise, as the free market intends.

[billsfan1959]

I'll go through this in pieces as well.

 

(1) Actually, those who believe it should be changed have offered "different" reasons, not "contradicting" reasons. There is nothing wrong with that.

 

Wrong. Some say if just one person is offended it should be changed. Others say if it's a majority of the "offended party." How is that not contradictory?

 

(2) You have no burden in defending the name or Snyder's right to use it? You are not on trial for your life where the burden falls on the government. You are not Daniel Snyder or affiliated with his team. You are in a debate on an internet forum and one in which you entered voluntarily. To say you have no burden in defending your position sort of defeats the whole point of a debate - and is intellectually lazy.

 

You missed my point. I have no burden to define offense and how to use it. I obviously have a burden to defend my point, and I have been. But if you want to say, "we should come up with a decided upon definition," its you who better come up with a definition. Or at least attempt to.

 

(1) Free speech is not an absolute right, and the name of a business that uses a term that can, at the very least, reasonably be inferred as offensive is certainly not above condemnation from others.

 

I was of the teaching that besides "imminent danger," freedom of speech is a right. I'm not sure how you're using absolute right in this case. I never said he is above condemnation, only that I am personally against it.

 

(2) Because Snyder doesn't think it's wrong, that should be the end of it? That is not even logic, just obstinance.

 

It's my belief. Feel free to condemn me too.

 

Well, at least you have admitted that you, perhaps, might not think the name is morally ok. Good start.

 

It's no start, because I have never been "ok" with the name on any moral ground.

 

(1) The government regulates what we can do in our private lives every single day.

 

This is sometimes a bad thing, haven't you noticed that?

 

Besides, this is not an issue of Snyder personally using the term in his private life. This is an issue of an organization that is in the public domain using the term.

 

Private business though.

 

(2) Government leaders "doing the right thing" and committing genocide? Honestly, this is so bizarre in regard to this debate, that I am not even sure what to say.

 

It's really not. You are so sure of your own morality, but so were many committers of genocide. If anything, it should make you reevaluate your own moral convictions.

 

1. They are not contradictory statements, they just vary in degrees. They carry the same message: If the name is offensive, maybe it should be changed.

2. I didn't say "we should come up with a decided upon definition." DC Tom said it and you echoed it. My stance, as I wrote in a previous post, is that there cannot be a concrete definition for offensiveness. I merely point out that it is ridiculous to say people can not oppose it on grounds that it is offensive if there is no concrete term for offensiveness

3. I used "absolute right" in that you seem to have this idea that because something is protected under free speech, then that is the end of it. It should never be subject to the forces of society to change it.

4. You stated that it is your belief that if Snyder thinks it is ok, then that should be the end of it. I do not think it is a logical sort of belief at all; however, I am not going to condemn you for it.

5. You are well with in your right to defend something that you feel is morally wrong. There are times I might do the same - this just doesn't happen to be one of them.

6. Sometimes it is a bad thing when government regulates what we can do in our private lives. Sometimes it is a good thing. Sometimes it is a necessary thing

7. Are you really suggesting that I should reconsider my belief that a term that refers to an entire population by skin color is offensive - because some leaders in history were under the delusional belief that entire populations should be exterminated? I think I will stick to my original point on this one. This is so bizarre in relation to this debate that I really don't even know how to address it.

Edited June 20, 2014 by billsfan1959

[Deranged Rhino]

Loyalty to the Constitution?

Where in the constitution is public protest forbidden?

[Deranged Rhino]

... I'm arguing to demonstrate the capricious ambiguity of this issue. Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful.

 

There is no ambiguity. The trick being played here is by the parties so outraged by the idea of messing with tradition (it's not about racism at all, not really) they've muddied the waters so much because they really don't have a logical argument to make. Only emotional ones.

 

No one is forcing Snyder to change anything. No one is trying to restrict Snyder's freedoms or the freedoms of his team's fans. That's all colored bubbles and have no bearing on this issue. The fear of government intervention is very real and very much in the collective ether which is why it's easy to bring those arguments and fears into this issue because on the surface this issue seems to be about racism and political correctness.

 

But it's not. It's about the name of a professional sports team. Nothing more. It's Snyder's and the NFL's decision, and theirs alone, as to whether or not it should be changed -- the public debate, such as the one occurring here and in other threads can only pressure Snyder or embolden him. That's it. The question shouldn't be 'should Snyder change the name', it should be 'if you owned the Redskins would you change the name'.

 

The people on here defending their defense of Snyder aren't wrong, they're just missing the point. They think its an attack on them and their tradition and thus are easily worked into a frenzy by anything that smells like a challenge to their world views. That much is clear. But if they'd take the time to actually think about the issue and ask themselves the right question as stated above, I would think this entire thread would be more thoughtful, considerate and well reasoned.

 

Not one person has identified "offensive" here in a way that is all useful. You're the only one that gave any soart of an objective measure...and it still sucked.

I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the others but there has been a definition that's very useful. If you're a Native American you get to decide. It's really that simple in terms of usage. In terms of whether or not something being deemed "offensive" is outrageous enough to warrant governmental intervention (which isn't happening at all in this case despite what some are claiming), well that's a different issue and then I'd agree with you that an objective metric for determining the offensive threshold would be difficult, if not impossible, to find.

 

But, as stated above, the offensiveness of the word is only relevant to this issue in each poster's individual position -- not Snyder's or the NFL.

[Malazan]

What were the prior 3-4 threads with the same people responding about? Should I pull some quotes from those?

 

Please don't try to tell me that this is about trademarks.

 

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.

[Rocky Landing]

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.

You're making a spurious assumption that this is setting some sort of precedent. It isn't. Trademarks are denied all the time. For example, a publisher tried to trademark "Hebe Magazine," and was denied on the grounds it was disparaging towards Jews-- even though it was championing Jewish issues. Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal.

 

This is simply the trademark process at work.

 

BTW- Muhammad's Islam Grill, assuming they served pork, would likely be denied a trademark.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Rocky Landing

[DC Tom]

But, as stated above, the offensiveness of the word is only relevant to this issue in each poster's individual position -- not Snyder's or the NFL

 

Untrue, since people are making their individual positions relevant by the pressure they're exerting on Snyder and the NFL, on behalf of a third party they think should be offended.

 

I don't remember if it was this thread or one of the others but there has been a definition that's very useful. If you're a Native American you get to decide. It's really that simple in terms of usage. In terms of whether or not something being deemed "offensive" is outrageous enough to warrant governmental intervention (which isn't happening at all in this case despite what some are claiming), well that's a different issue and then I'd agree with you that an objective metric for determining the offensive threshold would be difficult, if not impossible, to find.

 

The last is exactly what I'm arguing. If you're going to regulate or legislate it as "offensive," you'd better have some method for determining "offense" that is reasonably fair and equitable. The first is what I suggested - I couldn't care less what Tim Graham thinks on behalf of Native Americans everywhere. I want to know what the Native American community (not just the community leadership) thinks.

 

Otherwise, it comes down to nothing more than "I think this should be restricted because I find it icky..." which is why I brought up gay marriage earlier, because the same damn "icky" logic applies to that issue. Yes, I know they're not qualitatively the same issue (though closer than you believe, I think. Manzanar isn't Chelmno, but discrimination is discrimination), but the same "I think, therefore you should..." logic is still at play. So if you're going to set the precedent that THAT is a valid means of governance, be prepared to deal with the blow-back.

 

Likewise, "Dykes on Bikes" was denied a trademark, because it was disparaging towards lesbians. They appealed, arguing that they had successfully co-opted the word, and turned it into a source of pride. They won their appeal.

 

If I were the Redskins, I'd try the same appeal: given that Native Americans are no longer referred to as Redskins, the franchise has successfully co-opted the word as a source of pride embodying the warrior ethos of the Native Americans.

 

It's not a strong argument, but it is a valid one, as I'm sure the Washington Redskins aren't named "Redskins" specifically to insult and disparage Native Americans, and the word is NOT used to describe Native Americans any more ("Indian" is rarely used nowadays, unless you're working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.) Not an appeal they'd win, either.

[Rocky Landing]

I was listening to the radio on my drive in to work this morning and they were debating this subject. A lot of the same points that I have been reading on here were being made by the two respective pundits. And, I will say this: the argument for not changing the name sounds slightly better when spoken with an English accent.

 

You're welcome.

[Captain Caveman]

So if you're going to set the precedent that THAT is a valid means of governance, be prepared to deal with the blow-back.

 

That has been ingrained in governance of this country since its founding, because we're human beings. Change in interpretation of existing laws and adoption (and sometime revocation) of new laws based on popular opinion are one of the few constants in this country's history.

 

I think understand your point, but there are many in this thread (not necessarily you) who seem to be longing from some ideal that never existed.

 

Which is not to say that it's a perfect system. There are flaws. It's sometime messy (prohibition) and sometimes outright wrong (Japanese Internment camps) but over time, it seems to be getting us to a place where a greater number of people have more meaningful freedom and opportunities.

Edited June 20, 2014 by Captain Caveman

[Rocky Landing]

 

If I were the Redskins, I'd try the same appeal: given that Native Americans are no longer referred to as Redskins, the franchise has successfully co-opted the word as a source of pride embodying the warrior ethos of the Native Americans.

 

It's not a strong argument, but it is a valid one, as I'm sure the Washington Redskins aren't named "Redskins" specifically to insult and disparage Native Americans, and the word is NOT used to describe Native Americans any more ("Indian" is rarely used nowadays, unless you're working for the Bureau of Indian Affairs.) Not an appeal they'd win, either.

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

[FireChan]

I don't believe that is a valid argument since intent is not relevant. Just as Hebe Magazine, and Dykes on Bikes were not meant to disparage, the trademarks were denied because they were considered disparaging words, regardless of intent. Dykes on Bikes successfully argued that the generally accepted connotation of the word had changed. The Redskins lost their trademark because the plaintiff had successfully argued that the term "redskin" was derogatory at the time of its registration in 1967. Intent was not relevant to the case, even though it may be relevant to this debate.

 

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

[26CornerBlitz]

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

The Logo says no.

[Rocky Landing]

Do you really think the general connotation of Redskin, isn't the football team?

Obviously, I think that "redskin" is a derogatory word for Native American.