26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Is this really something that the Federal Government needs to be involved in? Name calling? Sticks and stones........ Yuck! What a bunch of 98lb. weaklings we have become. Do you have any understanding of US Patent and Trademark Law? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Is this really something that the Federal Government needs to be involved in? Name calling? Sticks and stones........ Yuck! What a bunch of 98lb. weaklings we have become. Exactly!!! We need more slurs! Let's call women female dogs and see you next tuesdays! All gay people are a bunch of sticks! Bring back the n word! The government is oppressing my right as a old white guy to be as ignorant as I want! The horror! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Wow, nice poem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kickedface Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 if its so offensive why haven't people stopped buying the merch? i suppose they could change the teams name to the washington savages or scalpers and keep the colors and logo. or if that's still too offensive they could just switch the name to the washinton whiteys. white people have no right to get offended so you'd never hear anything about it. i do find everyone getting butt hurt about everything ridiculous and figure if people want things to change then do it the easy way, get the majority to agree with it, not FIVE people who the claim was made in the name of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 So another team could change its name to the Redskins and there's nothing Washington can do about it. Or even all other 31 teams. Redskins @ Redskins (every game) Not exactly what the protestors wanted ! I'm sure all 31 teams are rushing to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Here's my rather simple opinion/breakdown - Team names change all the time, but the team (generally) still remains. Washington won't be moving anywhere, the players won't all disappear, sundays will still be "fun"days. So changing the name? No big deal. - The name "redskin" is offensive to a great many people. To me? I'm white, it doesn't effect me, so no skin (heh) off my back if it changes or not. However, if we're talking up to a million people in this country that it does directly insult? Then their voices should be heard on the subject, and if they want it changed, I feel like it should be. To most of us, it's just a team name, and team names aren't a huge deal. To others, its more than that, and that should be respected. Edited June 18, 2014 by Dorkington Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) The same thing happened 15 years ago, and the Redskins won on appeal. Unless something has changed I expect a similar verdict. http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2014/06/18/on-washington-name-same-ruling-was-issued-15-years-ago/ Edited June 18, 2014 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Here's my rather simple opinion/breakdown - Team names change all the time, but the team (generally) still remains. Washington won't be moving anywhere, the players won't all disappear, sundays will still be "fun"days. So changing the name? No big deal. - The name "redskin" is offensive to a great many people. To me? I'm white, it doesn't effect me, so no skin (heh) off my back if it changes or not. However, if we're talking up to a million people in this country that it does directly insult? Then their voices should be heard on the subject, and if they want it changed, I feel like it should be. To most of us, it's just a team name, and team names aren't a huge deal. Toothers, its more than that, and that should be respected. Well said. I really wonder why so many fight so hard to justify keeping a name that offends a lot of people? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 @RapSheet Here is everything #Redskins trademark attorney Bob Raskopf had to say: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trademark-Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf … Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The same thing happened 15 years ago, and the Redskins won on appeal. Unless something has changed I expect a similar verdict. http://profootballta...d-15-years-ago/ There has been plenty of social change over the last 15 years. I wouldn't be surprised if things are different this time around. (Also wouldn't be surprised if the same results happend... just saying, its not set in stone) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
section122 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Exactly!!! We need more slurs! Let's call women female dogs and see you next tuesdays! All gay people are a bunch of sticks! Bring back the n word! The government is oppressing my right as a old white guy to be as ignorant as I want! The horror! Thank you! Sometimes I have to remind myself that this board is mostly older white guys. Sometimes the board does the reminding for me. if its so offensive why haven't people stopped buying the merch? i suppose they could change the teams name to the washington savages or scalpers and keep the colors and logo. or if that's still too offensive they could just switch the name to the washinton whiteys. white people have no right to get offended so you'd never hear anything about it. i do find everyone getting butt hurt about everything ridiculous and figure if people want things to change then do it the easy way, get the majority to agree with it, not FIVE people who the claim was made in the name of. People will buy merch for their favorite team because it is their favorite team. There are many more than 5 people that care about this issue and it could well be the majority of people. You finding "everyone getting butt hurt about everything ridiculous" is fair. Except that it is your personal feeling that this is ridiculous. To some people this is a big deal. As C. Biscuit said, how would feel if they were the Washington N**gers? What about the Washing K*ikes? Would your feeling change then? You are apathetic towards this movement and it is well within your rights to be so. However when your argument is more anti-movement than apathetic to it. The same thing happened 15 years ago, and the Redskins won on appeal. Unless something has changed I expect a similar verdict. http://profootballta...d-15-years-ago/ Something like public opinion? This is a much bigger deal than it was 15 years ago. Edited June 18, 2014 by section122 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Thank you! Sometimes I have to remind myself that this board is mostly older white guys. Sometimes the board does the reminding for me. People will buy merch for their favorite team because it is their favorite team. There are many more than 5 people that care about this issue and it could well be the majority of people. You finding "everyone getting butt hurt about everything ridiculous" is fair. Except that is your personal feeling that this is ridiculous. To some people this is a big deal. As C. Biscuit said, how would feel if they were the Washington N**gers? What about the Washing K*ikes? Would your feeling change then? You are apathetic towards this movement and it is well within your rights to be so. However when your argument is more anti-movement than apathetic to it. Something like public opinion? This is a much bigger deal than it was 15 years ago. Public opinion isn't a legal argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Dog Named Kelso Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) Perhaps they could change the name to the Washington Red Indians, and limit the amount of change needed . Edited June 18, 2014 by A Dog Named Kelso Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtbag Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The same thing happened 15 years ago, and the Redskins won on appeal. Unless something has changed I expect a similar verdict. my understanding is that the earlier ruling was reversed due to a technicality (apparently the petitioners waited too long to file the complaint). i would assume that the more recent group has fixed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If you read the 2003 decision the government has to provide detailed analysis on Native American populations and their opinions on the team's name. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jauronimo Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Exactly!!! We need more slurs! Let's call women female dogs and see you next tuesdays! All gay people are a bunch of sticks! Bring back the n word! The government is oppressing my right as a old white guy to be as ignorant as I want! The horror! What is up with your fixation on old white men? How many times do we have to talk about the inherent !@#$ing irony in that statement? Learn a new trick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I just don't understand the attachment to the team name. It's clearly something that offends a segment of the population... is a team name really that important to your enjoyment of the game? If the Bills changed their name tomorrow, I'd still be a fan of the team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 my understanding is that the earlier ruling was reversed due to a technicality (apparently the petitioners waited too long to file the complaint). i would assume that the more recent group has fixed it. It was reversed because there was no evidence. The government didn't even try to show that the majority of Native Americans find the name disparaging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WestSenecaNJ Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Exactly!!! We need more slurs! Let's call women female dogs and see you next tuesdays! All gay people are a bunch of sticks! Bring back the n word! The government is oppressing my right as a old white guy to be as ignorant as I want! The horror! I can't wait for the zombie apocalypse... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The same thing happened 15 years ago, and the Redskins won on appeal. Unless something has changed I expect a similar verdict. http://profootballta...d-15-years-ago/ Care to make a wager on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I just don't understand the attachment to the team name. It's clearly something that offends a segment of the population... is a team name really that important to your enjoyment of the game? If the Bills changed their name tomorrow, I'd still be a fan of the team. Of course the name should be changed, just don't expect it to be because of this case. The Feds bungled the last one and the dissenting opinion this time says they did no better. We'll find out on appeal, but don't expect much nor for this to be resolved quickly. The last time it took 4 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dorkington Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Of course the name should be changed, just don't expect it to be because of this case. The Feds bungled the last one and the dissenting opinion this time says they did no better. We'll find out on appeal, but don't expect much nor for this to be resolved quickly. The last time it took 4 years. Oh, I don't think this will do it. But I think this, with mounting pressure, and maybe some other action, will lead to a change at some point. Assuming the pressure doesn't let up anytime soon. I don't think there's legally much that can be done to force the name change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Care to make a wager on that? I try not to bet on things almost a half decade in advance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirtbag Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 It was reversed because there was no evidence. The government didn't even try to show that the majority of Native Americans find the name disparaging. not according to the ap: "The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is similar to one it issued in 1999. That ruling was overturned in 2003 in large part on a technicality after the courts decided that the plaintiffs should have filed their complaint soon after the Redskins registered their nickname in 1967." http://www.buffalonews.com/article/20140618/AP/306189697/1004 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fingon Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) not according to the ap: "The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is similar to one it issued in 1999. That ruling was overturned in 2003 in large part on a technicality after the courts decided that the plaintiffs should have filed their complaint soon after the Redskins registered their nickname in 1967." http://www.buffalone.../306189697/1004 "The Court concludes that the [board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact" http://files.redskin...on-Redskins.pdf Edited June 18, 2014 by Fingon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) "The Court concludes that the [board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact" http://files.redskin...on-Redskins.pdf Judging from past Washington Skins' press releases on the subject of their name, I wouldn't assume they are definitive. Edited June 18, 2014 by Rocky Landing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 (edited) From the 2003 decision: https://web.williams...edskinscase.htm U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly issued the ruling in connection with a 1999 decision by a panel of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. But she also made clear that her ruling does not address the issue of whether the name "Redskins" actually is offensive to Indians. In her 84-page decision, issued late Tuesday, Kollar-Kotelly also found that the activists waited too long to make their claims under the law, which was in effect when the Redskins trademarks were registered in 1967. Kollar-Kotelly criticized the trademark board for improperly relying on testimony from several linguists, which she said was too inconclusive. She also chastised the board for basing its decision in part on a 1996 survey of American Indians that concluded a majority found the term "Redskin" offensive. Edited June 18, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BuffaloBud Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 I wonder if this will be more fuel to having my high school (Lancaster) change its nickname. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The team has released a statement saying the panel’s decision “will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.” The team notes similar decision’s have been made in the past, and provides headlines forecasting the end of the team’s name dating back to 1999 and 2003. We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board. As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation. This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KollegeStudnet Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The Washington Thereiswaysnextyears Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Real Buffalo Joe Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 This may have been posted somewhere already, but it seems appropriate for this original thread on the Redskins team name. http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sportspickle.com%2F2013%2F10%2Fideas-for-washington-redskins-name-by-your-uncle&ei=YsehU-f8B8epyASRkYHACQ&usg=AFQjCNFufMoFNlIBdu40JP85LNhY7eSrHA&bvm=bv.69137298,d.aWw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 In general anything that pisses off Dan Snyder is good, but politicians using the U.S. Patent Office to enforce politically correct whims of the day is pretty ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
26CornerBlitz Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 In general anything that pisses off Dan Snyder is good, but politicians using the U.S. Patent Office to enforce politically correct whims of the day is pretty ridiculous. The complaint that the USPTO made a ruling on was brought by politicians? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 The complaint that the USPTO made a ruling on was brought by politicians? Oh come on....you aren't really that naive, are you? You really can't see the behind the scenes maneuvering here in the decision making process? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Damian Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 And our favorite team is named after a man who killed many Native Americans during the Indian War... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 And our favorite team is named after a man who killed many Native Americans during the Indian War... As long as they stay in Buffalo, I don't care what the name is. Go back to Braves. Bills is sort of stupid in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Oh come on....you aren't really that naive, are you? You really can't see the behind the scenes maneuvering here in the decision making process? Conspiracy!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kirby Jackson Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Geeze, I never would have expected this thread to spin off into a political debate where everyone "votes along party lines." The same thing happened when I went to the Michael Sam thread to discuss his merits as a football player. Everyone just wanted to talk about what it would be like to be in a locker room full of naked men. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Luxy312 Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Anyone that doesn't see this as a highly politicized issue really isn't paying attention. If anyone doesn't happen to be aware, there are over 1,000 high schools (including some on Indian reservations) that carry mascot names that could be considered disparaging to Indians. Redskins, Braves, Indians, Warhawks, Redhawks, Redbirds, and many others. There's only one reason the Washington Redskins are getting so much attention and media. They're big business while these other places are not. When you ask yourself whether there is an unfair amount of media on this NFL franchise, ask yourself how much attention the Carthage Redman are getting. The answer should be pretty obvious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 Your political biases aside, this issue has been around since the 1980's. It's hardly some "whim of the day" as you call it. Everything in my world is not some naked left or right issue. Actually I haven't introduced any political bias into the discussion and if you could've taken a moment because offering your knee-jerk response, you might have noticed the two Senators who recently called on the NFL to change the name were from opposite political parties. The timing of that action with a ruling on an issue that (supposedly) has around since the 1980s goes well beyond suspicious. Given your well worn crusade on this topic, it's no surprise that you can't acknowledge or discuss anything outside of your pre-programmed view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts