ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 To the mods: There have been some developments that in my view would make it appropriate to re-open the archived thread found at the link below. Would you please re-open the archived original thread, and merge it with the one I just started? Thanks. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168485-us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark/page-19?hl=redskins%20trademark _______________________________________________________ There is a case, not directly involving the NFL, that is now on appeal in the Federal Circuit that may ultimately impact whether or not the "Redskins" trademark remains canceled or gets re-instated by the courts: http://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2015/06/16/in-re-tam-federal-circuit-orders-en-banc-review-of-trademark-acts-ban-against-registration-of-disparaging-marks/#more-2186 Perhaps the most publicized recent dispute invoking Section 2(a) is that of the Washington Redskins football team, which saw six of its trademark registrations canceled a year ago after being deemed disparaging to Native Americans. Pro Football’s appeal of the cancellation decision will be heard in the Eastern District of Virginia on June 23, 2015. Depending on the outcome of In re Tam, the controversial mark could be reinstated notwithstanding decisions made long ago in the court of public opinion. Here's an update (now a few months old) about the court case that directly involves the "Redskins" trademark: http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/article_221cd139-ae84-5ffc-8018-6e1fdd878dc2.html
hondo in seattle Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 To the mods: There have been some developments that in my view would make it appropriate to re-open the archived thread found at the link below. Would you please re-open the archived original thread, and merge it with the one I just started? Thanks. http://forums.twobillsdrive.com/topic/168485-us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark/page-19?hl=redskins%20trademark _______________________________________________________ There is a case, not directly involving the NFL, that is now on appeal in the Federal Circuit that may ultimately impact whether or not the "Redskins" trademark remains canceled or gets re-instated by the courts: http://www.ipintelligencereport.com/2015/06/16/in-re-tam-federal-circuit-orders-en-banc-review-of-trademark-acts-ban-against-registration-of-disparaging-marks/#more-2186 Here's an update (now a few months old) about the court case that directly involves the "Redskins" trademark: http://www.richmond.com/redskins-xtra/article_221cd139-ae84-5ffc-8018-6e1fdd878dc2.html I don't know how the hell you found the IP Intelligence article. Who reads this stuff?
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted June 18, 2015 Author Posted June 18, 2015 (edited) I don't know how the hell you found the IP Intelligence article. Who reads this stuff? Darryl's subscription to Ladies' Home Journal expired. Edited June 18, 2015 by ICanSleepWhenI'mDead
Rocky Landing Posted June 18, 2015 Posted June 18, 2015 I don't know how they would argue that the trademarks are either, not a form of commercial speech, or not offensive. Unless there's another angle, I don't know how they could win tho appeal.
ICanSleepWhenI'mDead Posted July 5, 2015 Author Posted July 5, 2015 I don't know how they would argue that the trademarks are either, not a form of commercial speech, or not offensive. Unless there's another angle, I don't know how they could win tho appeal. The Washington Redskins team (technically, "Pro-Football, Inc.") has filed an amicus brief in the the trademark appeal by "The Slants." That appeal to the Federal Circuit sitting en banc is scheduled to be orally argued on October 2, 2015. Here's the NFL team's amicus brief: https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.documentcloud.org/documents/2108054/profootball-fedcircuit-20150618.pdf I still think that the older, archived thread about the Redskins trademark should be re-opened and merged with this one. Anybody listening?
Saxum Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 The Redsucks have been trying to leave Cooke's folly in Maryland for years and have been told that they can not move back to DC until they change name of team. For a team who was biggest holdout in allowing blacks onto team and whose owner has a Napoleon complex that will never happen.
Formerly Allan in MD Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 The Redsucks have been trying to leave Cooke's folly in Maryland for years and have been told that they can not move back to DC until they change name of team. For a team who was biggest holdout in allowing blacks onto team and whose owner has a Napoleon complex that will never happen. They could trademark their most popular alternative name in the DC area these days, Deadskins. The analogy to Napoleon is somewhat flawed. Napoleon kept coming back after losing; Snyder has never done anything but lose, except for the brief Gibbs anomaly.
boyst Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 It is amazing how the Redskins trademark gets ignored vs. the Confederate Naval Jack and Tennessee Battle flag drawing so much fire.
Beerball Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 It is amazing how the Redskins trademark gets ignored vs. the Confederate Naval Jack and Tennessee Battle flag drawing so much fire.You do understand why that is, don't you? For those saying that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage I'd love to be able to give them a test in just that subject. My guess is over 75% would fail. What someone does to/on their own property regarding this is up to the individual. What I do not believe can be debated is that the confederate flag has no place on "public" property.
Buffalo Barbarian Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 they should just change it to fighting Irish.
boyst Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 You do understand why that is, don't you? For those saying that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage I'd love to be able to give them a test in just that subject. My guess is over 75% would fail. What someone does to/on their own property regarding this is up to the individual. What I do not believe can be debated is that the confederate flag has no place on "public" property. I do understand that difference. That the Redskins logo had its trademark removed is the government washing its hands clean of the slander.
Saxum Posted July 5, 2015 Posted July 5, 2015 they should just change it to fighting Irish. Wrong team since Fighting Irish got the name for fighting back prejudice Irish faced from going to US (Signs were up saying "No Irish" just as later they said no blacks and no Asians). I'd make my suggestion on a replacement team name as insulting to owner as Redskins is to Native Americans but would get a warning point again. It is acceptable on this board to use that derogatory name but not others showing how much political power Native Americans have.
Very wide right Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You do understand why that is, don't you? For those saying that the confederate flag is a symbol of southern heritage I'd love to be able to give them a test in just that subject. My guess is over 75% would fail. What someone does to/on their own property regarding this is up to the individual. What I do not believe can be debated is that the confederate flag has no place on "public" property. You submit that the confederate flag is NOT a symbol of southern heritage??? You might want to allow someone more schooled in the subject to craft the test then because you clearly have no clue.
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You submit that the confederate flag is NOT a symbol of southern heritage??? You might want to allow someone more schooled in the subject to craft the test then because you clearly have no clue. Heritage of getting your ass in kicked in a war? Or slavery? I think there are bigger problems than a flag but it's amazing how prideful folks are in the flag. You think Seattle fans are going to be flaunting their SB runner up shirts?
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You submit that the confederate flag is NOT a symbol of southern heritage??? You might want to allow someone more schooled in the subject to craft the test then because you clearly have no clue.
Very wide right Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 Heritage of getting your ass in kicked in a war? Or slavery? I think there are bigger problems than a flag but it's amazing how prideful folks are in the flag. You think Seattle fans are going to be flaunting their SB runner up shirts? There are numerous head stones in cemeteries all over the south in which the confederate flag is proudly displayed. Win or lose its still a heritage that men fought for and were willing to give their lives for.That war was NOT about slavery.99% of the soldiers in that war never owned a slave.Also, plenty of slaves were owned in the north as well.I would strongly encourage you to speak to a civil war reenactor about the meaning of this war.They are very passionate about this subject and will deliver a very different message than your high school teacher did.Plenty of revisionist history being taught by todays liberal "teachers".
C.Biscuit97 Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 There are numerous head stones in cemeteries all over the south in which the confederate flag is proudly displayed. Win or lose its still a heritage that men fought for and were willing to give their lives for.That war was NOT about slavery.99% of the soldiers in that war never owned a slave.Also, plenty of slaves were owned in the north as well.I would strongly encourage you to speak to a civil war reenactor about the meaning of this war.They are very passionate about this subject and will deliver a very different message than your high school teacher did.Plenty of revisionist history being taught by todays liberal "teachers". What's wrong with the American flag? Honestly, I'm asking. A lot of the stuff the south did at the time of the civil war would be considered terrorist acts today.
Deranged Rhino Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 There are numerous head stones in cemeteries all over the south in which the confederate flag is proudly displayed. Win or lose its still a heritage that men fought for and were willing to give their lives for.That war was NOT about slavery.99% of the soldiers in that war never owned a slave.Also, plenty of slaves were owned in the north as well.I would strongly encourage you to speak to a civil war reenactor about the meaning of this war.They are very passionate about this subject and will deliver a very different message than your high school teacher did.Plenty of revisionist history being taught by todays liberal "teachers". Demonstrably inaccurate. The war was fought because of slavery. Because the men fighting the war didn't own slaves (or universally share the politics of their leaders) doesn't make the war any less about slavery. Fighting men and women rarely fight for the same causes as their elected officials. Attempting to say the war wasn't fought over slavery is as disingenuous as it is historically false.
Beerball Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 You submit that the confederate flag is NOT a symbol of southern heritage??? You might want to allow someone more schooled in the subject to craft the test then because you clearly have no clue.Read what I said again & then get back to me.
Very wide right Posted July 7, 2015 Posted July 7, 2015 (edited) What's wrong with the American flag? Honestly, I'm asking. A lot of the stuff the south did at the time of the civil war would be considered terrorist acts today. Nothing wrong with the American flag,greatest in the world.The confederate flag is part of this nations history though like it or not.I would like the people of South carolina to decide if it flies in front of the state house though not a small group of special interest folks with an agenda practicing revisionist history. Edited July 7, 2015 by Very wide right
Recommended Posts