Captain Caveman

I fully agree. It would be a jerk move to make up some **** about why he is out, it would be a much bigger jerk move to disclose a real private health issue.

The law that makes a disparaging name "untrademarkable" was passed in 1946. The earlier ruling was a result of a challenge in court, which is presumably the only way that a trademark would be reviewed.

I voted idiot just for starting this thread.

You can say it's a sloppy law, that it requires some judgement to be made, but the fact is, it is a law that has been in effect for almost 70 years and in this case it seems to have been applied correctly. And you can complain that it has not been consistently enforced, but you should be able to provide some examples where a reasonable complaint was made and a trademark was not overturned. That's how these laws are policed, based on actual reasonable complaints - so lay off the examples where there has been no complaint / judgement.

Holy **** was that informative. Thanks Donald.

Isn't the greater duty of the trustees to carry out the wishes of the deceased?

Why would someone without an "agenda" be writing an opinion column? Can you clarify what you are reading his agenda to be? You are making it sound sinister, it's just his opinion.

If I understand the premise of the OP, it seems a bit crazy to me. The idea that he is against the stadium because he is anti Buffalo Bills, as opposed to being genuinely concerned with spending public dollars on a stadium just seems... off. Is the suggestion that he's a Dolphin fan? Maybe he's not a football fan at all, but I don't think this somehow disqualifies him from writing about the subject. I think the voices of non-sports fans should be heard as loudly as everyone else's when it comes to public financing for stadiums / arenas.

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.

Then why is the government involved in granting trademarks at all. Let the business fight it out, the best product will win, right?

You started out with free speech, ignoring several people who have repeatedly mention that there is not limitation on free speech, since there is no ruling that says the Redskins can't use the name, only that it should not have been trademarked. Now everyone can use the name, that's free speech. You criticized my use of government to discuss the matter (as opposed to Congress), ignoring that 1. Congress is a part of our Government and 2. Congress has established other offices of government to regulate commerce, including the USPTO. Yet you throw around the words patent and trademarks as if they are the same thing. You ask to see precedent, a law, and the specific sections of said law where causing offense is grounds for not granting a trademark. I provided a reference to said law, the specific language in the law, and an article with several instances of precedent, including where no intent to offend is present, as is presumable in this case. You made up some nonsense about how it's a different law and I can't just do whatever I damn well please, and that I need to prove intent. I don't see how the fact that this is a different law somehow makes it less legal. I'm sure with your excellent mind and education you will find a way to disagree. The precedent shows that intent does not need to be proven, only that the trademarked name could reasonably be considered to : 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

Her's a much more recent survey, although the sample size certainly does not make it definitive. http://cips.csusb.edu/docs/PressRelease.pdf

So are you a professional 11th grade history teacher? Do you enjoy it?

Ok. http://blogs.wsj.com...ive-trademarks/ The Lanham Act., the major piece of federal trademark law, forbids any trademark that: 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

You mean like the act of Congress that created the USPTO? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_Act_of_1836 In this case though, we're not talking about a law. The USPTO granted the trademark - are you ok with that, or are you saying the USPTO overstepped in bounds in granting it? So they can grant a patent, but not revoke it? Also, it'd be nice if you would keep it civil. I don't really appreciate the offers of free education.

Seems like you didn't read what I wrote, because your response completely ignores my basic point, and touches on several subjects which are not at all related. There is no limitation of free speech. There is no court ruling saying that the Redskins can't use the name. Speech is not limited. Trade and commerce are regulated by the government, and have been since day 1. And the government is not even saying that the Redskins can't profit from the name, only that they can't claim sole ownership of said name.

Where in the Bill of Rights does it mention profiting from the use of a racial slur? No one is limiting free speech here. The government is saying that if the Redskins want to profit from the use of a racial slur, they will not be protected under trademark law. Suggesting that free speech somehow transfers to trademark law is a wild jump.

1,215,000,000

That's not what makes you a bad person. Hi-oh. If we're getting into historical figures, George Washington was a slave owner. So, maybe they should be called the D.C. Americans?

Thanks, hopefully it gets better for him.

Sorry if this has been covered (I checked the past couple of pages) does anyone know if the guy he fell on is ok?

I'm sure all 31 teams are rushing to do so.

Wow, nice poem.