Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Federal court says they can keep it, protected by the 1st Amendment.

Finally some sense out of the Federal Government. As I stated before, Apache helicopters, Tomahawk missiles..look in the mirror.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

They didn't win anything. The Redskins case is not being heard until next year.

Washington Redskins may be able keep trademark on 'disparaging' name - Dec. 23, 2015

"The Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday did not directly involve the Redskins. It ruled that an Asian American rock band called The Slants had the right to trademark protections even if some people were offended by the name. "

The issue with this decision vis a vis the Redskins name, is that The Slants are themselves of Asian descent, calling themselves "The Slants", whereas there isn't one single Native American in the Redskins organization (that I know of, certainly no players or coaches are, GM, owner).

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Correct. Going back to court but positive news for them. Thought we already went through this with Larry Flynt but here we are again:

A federal appeals court ruled Tuesday that the government was wrong to reject trademarks of names that are deemed offensive.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had ruled in June 2014 that because the Redskins name is offensive to Native Americans, the team could not trademark its name. It cited federal law that prohibited “registering scandalous, immoral, or disparaging” trademarks.

The team and the NFL have been fighting to keep the trademark in place ever since. The Redskins never actually lost their trademark — those protections were kept in place during the appeals process.

The Court of Appeals ruling Tuesday did not directly involve the Redskins. It ruled that an Asian American rock band called The Slants had the right to trademark protections even if some people were offended by the name.

“The government enacted this law – and defends it today – because it disapproves of the messages conveyed by disparaging marks,” wrote the court in its decision. “It is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys.”

The NFL filed a statement to the court supporting The Slants.

“This freewheeling ability to deprive trademark owners of significant benefits because of what they say through their marks strikes at the very heart of the First Amendment values this country holds dear,” the league argued.

Redskins team owner Daniel Snyder has insisted the name is not offensive to Native Americans, but many Native American groups dispute that and have fought the trademark in court. Some politicians, including President Obama, have urged the team to change its name.

Native Americans who are fighting the Redskins over the team’s trademark filed motions in the case asking the court to uphold the prohibition of issuing government protections for trademarks that are considered offensive. It argued that the trademark owners could continue to use the name even without the government issuing legal protections.

“The refusal to register a trademark does not impair the applicant’s free speech rights under the First Amendment,” they argued.

Losing protection would have allowed anyone to sell goods with the Redskins name or logo without paying the league as they now must do.

Trademark and Copyright 2015 Cable News Network, Inc., a Time Warner Company. All rights reserved.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

I heard Donald Trump is going to straighten them out.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

So maybe it's about disallowing the trademark so the groups fighting the trademark can produce/sell goods with the Redskins logo and not pay the league? Just trying to follow the money trail and see how it all sorts out, #shrug.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Waiting for a group of Atheists to go after the "Saints."

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Now that's funny. This damn PC world is crazy.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

I know you are making a joke , but at the same, you have a good point AND IT WILL happen. I poste about the Saints ' name and the whole meaning of the Saints(All Saint's Day) etc. before in this subject. Yes, it will be a matter of time before some people have issue with the religious meanings of the Saints' team, and why stop there. The Fluer -de-lie of France ...repression. We can go on and on. It has become PC stupid.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

For crying out loud. Stop the bull****.
1. "Saint" is not derogatory term or racial slur. Never has been.
2. Atheists don't give a rat's ass who/what you worship or what you choose to call your privately owned business. You can open Jehovah's Hardware Store or Virgin Mary's 32 Flavors, or have a football team named the Saints... atheists don't give a ****. Atheists only give a **** when their kids are punished in school for not praying, or when the government sponsors religion or forces religion upon them.

It's been over 35 years now... you probably should stop now with the "PC is ruining the country" crap.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

People throw up frivolous lawsuits all the time. We are joking , but yes, after the Redskins debate, lawsuits, why not some fool say Saints and everything else is against their beliefs , whatever.
Christmas in the public school systems is called Winter Break.
Thanksgiving Break is called Fall Break.
Easter Break is called Spring Break.
No prayer in public school systems.
Redskins is against some Native American Indian groups.
A secretary is called an Executive Assistant.
Receptionist is ...Pubic Relations Communications Officer

Whatever. It is all PC stupid.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Yeah, whatever.

Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution.

Where is Danny Akroyd when you need him... no, "Redskin" is not against some Native American groups. "Redskin" is and has always been a racial slur to describe ANY and ALL Native American. It is just like any other of the racial slurs that come up as asterisks when you type them. Granted, we don't make much if it because we have conveniently placed most Native Americans in reservations.

And the complaints dept is now customer service, and the customer is always right, and partly cloudy is now partly sunny... so?
Yeah, whatever.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

[quote=Tobias-Reiper;687339]Yeah, whatever.
Yes. The government is not, and should not, be in the business of pushing religion in any way, shape, or form. Says so in the U.S. Constitution.

Thats not what the constitution says.

We did not "place" them there and no one is forcing them to stay.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

IDK dude, the fact something is not derogatory hasn't stopped the PC crowd before ... here's a good recent example (it just passed through the MN House or Senate) where the Minnesota legislature is looking at renaming Asian Carp to "Invasive Carp" because they feel it is offensive to Asians ... Minnesota-renames-Asian-carp-because-name-offensive ... there has been absolutely no outcry from the Asian community on the name of these fish and it actually encompasses three specific carp that originated in China/Vietnam (Asia, go figure ... ) and threaten the Great Lakes ecosystem.

Just an example of how PC is alive & well and how it wouldn't necessarily take an atheist to take offense at the New Orleans mascot ... there's loopy m'fers everywhere just looking for a cause, :neutral:.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Couldn't agree more. People will pretend to be offended by anything these days, if it can get them money. Either by lawsuit, or the right to sell goods at full profit in this case. There were plenty of native americans who came out saying this wasn't offensive to them. That tells you something about the motivations of some people.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

I feel you may be confusing PC with politicians trying to either appeal to their party's fringe with irrelevant fluff (well, the irrelevant fluff that ends up costing taxpayers money, so I guess not so irrelevant :( ), or are trying to pad their resumes with irrelevant fluff: no one is going to oppose to rename a fish in the Senate.. well, maybe if the fish was the Robert E. Lee Carp :) ... but I digress. Happens on both sides of the isle. I doubt Sen. Hoffman and Gov. Dayton really want to call the fish what they are, as the article states: neither Ctenopharyngodon idella or Hypophthalmichthys harmandi, they don't exactly roll off the tongue :)

In any case, when it comes to "Redskin", it is a derogatory term, it is a racial slur. The word's meaning may have been watered down among non-Native American people, and may very well be because of a football team being named the Redskins and not hearing much (or not wanting to hear) from the Native Americans who are conveniently segregated in reservations, but it is not non-Native American people it offends.

As I've said before, I can only imagine the outrage of the very Daniel Snyder of there was a team called The Washington Treblinkers, with black and red uniforms. He would fight to have that name changed. But no one would even dare call a team the Treblinkers. And why wouldn't they? Because they are politically correct?

I can guarantee you, if I were to walk to you and your mother in front of your kids, and I called your mother something like .. well, can't type it because it would come up all asterisks, but say that sounds like "bucking count whole",the last think that's going to go through your mind is "this man is exercising his 1st amendment rights" or "how non-pc.. bravo!". I am willing to bet you'd probably take a swing at me, if not 2 or 3.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Don't take it from me.

" Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."


Sure... sure ...

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

TLDR ... you're going off on tangents. My point was in regards to the possibility of someone finding the non-offensive nickname "Saints" offensive and giving a current example of just such a case ... not confusing anything. Renaming Asian Carp to 'Invasive Carp' because it hypothetically offends Asians perfectly illustrates that and how the Saints mascot may be misconstrued one day by the PC crowd, #shrug. Yes, I agree it's pandering to the fringe ... the "politically correct" fringe, ;) .

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Well, you should have.
You are operating under the assumption that indeed someone was so extremely PC as to find the name "Asian carp" offensive; yet no one finds "Asian carp" to be offensive (well, I am sure there has to be a nut or two out there); not even Sen. Hoffman or Gov. Dayton, I assure you. They both merely found an opportunity to pad their stats without opposition through a totally meaningless action with literally no repercussions whatsoever.

So when you say that the name Saint could be misconstrued one day by the "PC crowd", it is highly inflammatory and pure hyperbole.

Speaking of letting go of the "pc is ruining the country" thing, probably could let go of the slippery slope thing at the same time.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

They will get to keep the name. Can't go around banning everything just cause people get offended. I don't think people really understand the impact of banning things that don't harm anyone physically or financially. If that happens we are done.

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

So what law did they make?

Re: Redskins win trademark dispute
 

Well, when I see you dismiss someone else's opinion with "whatever" several times in a thread and show a lack of regard for any opinion other than your own, I tend not to pay too much attention the rest of the way because past experience has taught me it's gonna' become one of those threads, #shrug.

Well, I guess the fact that someone felt the need to introduce legislation at the taxpayer's expense when there has been absolutely no outcry anywhere, anytime, concerning the correctness of the name "Asian Carp", indicates to me that I'm operating under a correct assumption, #shrug. Somehow I feel we're on the same side on this point (a waste of legislation), but maybe for different reasons?

"Highly inflammatory and pure hyberboble?" ... I don't see your point. Maybe to you, alone, #shrug. "Highly inflammatory"? Have the protests started already? :lol:. I think the example of the Asian Carp renaming is a perfect example of how the PC crowd could possibly come for the Saints mascot and certainly not hyperbole, #shrug.

http://memecrunch.com/meme/1QY3Z/ric....png?w=500&c=1

You lost me a little bit on this one with "slippery slope" thing ... not all your fault, they don't call me 'SloMotion' because I'm the fastest m'fer on the track ... but you're calling for letting go of the "pc is ruining the country" thing, right?

I guess if I was the only one that felt PC is ruining the country and/or society as a whole, I'd consider it, but there's just too many people out there that agree, #shrug.