Beastmode

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.

Tobias-Reiper

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).

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

Beastmode

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.

foreverfan

I heard Donald Trump is going to straighten them out.

SloMotion

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.

vpheughan

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

QBREES9

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

OldMaid

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.

Tobias-Reiper

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.

'Cause the simple man pays the thrills, the bills and the pills that kill

OldMaid

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.