Washington loses it trademark for team name.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-18-2014, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by JustaslowZ06

It was brought on BY the NAACP, across 5 states which they consolidated into one case at the Surpeme Court. Unless I remember wrong anyway. They represented the NAACP, along with a couple other groups. This is COMPLETELY different.

Exactly.

**moose10101** · 06-18-2014, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by lobachevsky

After the Danny Snyders exhaust their appeals, you bet your arse it will. Any & every 3rd-world manufacturer will be able to crank out stuff with the "R*dsk*ns" logos & undercut the wildly-overpriced "NFL licensed" crap without paying the team a (you should pardon the expression) red cent for the use. So long as they leave the "NFL" off the look-alikes, neither the team nor the league will have any legal recourse.

The logo still has trademark protection. This is just about the name. That's been stated several times already.

**blah3** · 06-18-2014, 12:24 PM

Brown V Board of Education is a poor analogy because in that case, treatment of people by the govt was the issue. The govt was treating black children differently than white children.
This instance does not involve the govt, and it really does not involve the way a native american, american indian whatever is the non-offensive term of the day is being treated. It a case of someone saying they are offended and FORCING their opinion upon the owner af a business. They are forcing their opinion upon the private property of an individual. And the govt now thinks that is OK. It's ridiculous. You can have every right to be offended, but I have every right not to give a hoot about your opinion.

**Kyle Cactus** · 06-18-2014, 12:28 PM

I know people in this thread (on both sides of the issues) are trying to make some more sophisticated arguments than this but ...

... why isn't the simple fact that it refers to a race of people by the color of their skin enough to deem the name inappropriate?

Would we be OK with calling a team the "yellow men" and having an Asian mascot? Definitely not. I get that the term redskin has a different history. Maybe that would hold some weight as a counter argument if I could provide only one example of race based names being offensive, but I'm pretty sure it's universally true. We wouldn't be comfortable naming a team "whiteskins" or "blacks" or any other name that refers exclusively to skin color. At this point the origin is irrelevant. This goes beyond the realm of oversensitivity an PC. It's simple racism.

**Brien Jackson** · 06-18-2014, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Talk about derp.

If that were a fungible analogy, you'd have a point.

Go find me members of the black community that find the N word ok. Or find me leaders of the black community who are ok being called colored.

Because I CAN find numerous tribal leaders who are totally ok with the term Redskin and understand it's true history.

The two black kids I went to high school with were "okay" with having their white friends tossing around the N-word in their presence.

**HotInHere** · 06-18-2014, 12:30 PM

For anyone interested, here is the complete ruling.
Of note:

The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent's services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990. Section 2(a) prohibits registration of matter that disparages a substantial composite, which need not be a majority, of the referenced group. Thirty percent is without doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 626,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990.

**HoustonRaven** · 06-18-2014, 12:30 PM

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

I know people in this thread (on both sides of the issues) are trying to make some more sophisticated arguments than this but ...

... why isn't the simple fact that it refers to a race of people by the color of their skin enough to deem the name inappropriate?

Would we be OK with calling a team the "yellow men" and having an Asian mascot? Definitely not. I get that the term redskin has a different history. Maybe that would hold some weight as a counter argument if I could provide only one example of race based names being offensive, but I'm pretty sure it's universally true. We wouldn't be comfortable naming a team "whiteskins" or "blacks" or any other name that refers exclusively to skin color. At this point the origin is irrelevant. This goes beyond the realm of oversensitivity an PC. It's simple racism.

So the mere mention of skin color makes it racist? That's what we've devolved to?

**Brien Jackson** · 06-18-2014, 12:32 PM

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

I know people in this thread (on both sides of the issues) are trying to make some more sophisticated arguments than this but ...

... why isn't the simple fact that it refers to a race of people by the color of their skin enough to deem the name inappropriate?

Would we be OK with calling a team the "yellow men" and having an Asian mascot? Definitely not. I get that the term redskin has a different history. Maybe that would hold some weight as a counter argument if I could provide only one example of race based names being offensive, but I'm pretty sure it's universally true. We wouldn't be comfortable naming a team "whiteskins" or "blacks" or any other name that refers exclusively to skin color. At this point the origin is irrelevant. This goes beyond the realm of oversensitivity an PC. It's simple racism.

It's also deeply ridiculous that the idea that American culture was SO RACIST towards Native Americans that the term could be flung around willy-nilly in public makes contemporary use of the term less bad.

**HotInHere** · 06-18-2014, 12:33 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Brown V Board of Education is a poor analogy because in that case, treatment of people by the govt was the issue. The govt was treating black children differently than white children.
This instance does not involve the govt, and it really does not involve the way a native american, american indian whatever is the non-offensive term of the day is being treated. It a case of someone saying they are offended and FORCING their opinion upon the owner af a business. They are forcing their opinion upon the private property of an individual. And the govt now thinks that is OK. It's ridiculous. You can have every right to be offended, but I have every right not to give a hoot about your opinion.

And the government is under no obligation to protect (i.e. trademark) your offensive business.

**Kyle Cactus** · 06-18-2014, 12:37 PM

Originally Posted by blah3

Brown V Board of Education is a poor analogy because in that case, treatment of people by the govt was the issue. The govt was treating black children differently than white children.
This instance does not involve the govt, and it really does not involve the way a native american, american indian whatever is the non-offensive term of the day is being treated. It a case of someone saying they are offended and FORCING their opinion upon the owner af a business. They are forcing their opinion upon the private property of an individual. And the govt now thinks that is OK. It's ridiculous. You can have every right to be offended, but I have every right not to give a hoot about your opinion.

This cuts to the core of the issue for me. It's beyond me how anyone would try to defent the term, which clearly seems racist, but having any gov't entity forcing Snyder to change it doesn't seem right. Snyder should change it. He won't unless he stands to lose money. So people are trying to make his use of the name less profitable, whether it be through legal means of removing a trademark or just through public rebuking.

I'm not going to lose sleep over this no matter how it plays out. But if people have the right to be offended, and Snyder has the right to the name, then why shouldn't anyone have the right to target his business for using a name they find offensive?

**Brien Jackson** · 06-18-2014, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by HotInHere

And the government is under no obligation to protect (i.e. trademark) your offensive business.

This.

**Brien Jackson** · 06-18-2014, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by Kyle Cactus

This cuts to the core of the issue for me. It's beyond me how anyone would try to defent the term, which clearly seems racist, but having any gov't entity forcing Snyder to change it doesn't seem right. Snyder should change it. He won't unless he stands to lose money. So people are trying to make his use of the name less profitable, whether it be through legal means of removing a trademark or just through public rebuking.

I'm not going to lose sleep over this no matter how it plays out. But if people have the right to be offended, and Snyder has the right to the name, then why shouldn't anyone have the right to target his business for using a name they find offensive?

The Patent Office can't force him to change the name, but they certainly can cancel his trademarks, and it seems awfully hard to argue with their logic that the trademark never should have been granted in the first place under the law.