US Patent Office cancels Redskins trademark

[Bronc24]

In like a mofo.

[DC Tom]

Why, yes! I just baked a new batch this morning... or was it in 1966? I forget.

 

 

 

Shhhhhh!!!!! Sphere O' Beer is doing his upmost to get us some tasty new morsels and kitty toys.

 

"Upmost?"

 

Yeah, that's going in the TDBisms thread.

[Greg F]

Imagine if the NFL had a team called the 'New York N Word', and nobody cared because 'it's tradition', or whatever the other nonsense excuse of the day was?

 

Well they do have a team named the Yankees, which is often a derogatory term used by southerners to refer to people from the north. Context matters.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

My God, why did it take so long to start a thread about this?

 

You're an idiot. (tm, until the USPTO takes it away for offending someone.)

 

But he makes some good points. Plus, the first one talked about the US Patent office, this one talks about the US Trademark office. Completely new topic.

 

With no trademark rights fans can sell there own

New Shirts with redskins logo right out side

The stadiums.

 

 

Even made sure to capitalize New Shirts,and The stadiums, and made sure redskins wasn't. A new and innovate take on the subject.

Edited June 18, 2014 by The Real Buffalo Joe

[Best Player Available]

In

^

[DC Tom]

Even made sure to capitalize New Shirts,and The stadiums, and made sure redskins wasn't. A new and innovate take on the subject.

 

Shakespearean, no less.

 

"With no trademark rights fans can sell there own

New Shirts with redskins logo right out side"

 

 

Imperfect, but capable, iambic pentameter.

[The Real Buffalo Joe]

But can they sell there Own right they're outside The stadium

Their crazy if they

dont.

[Big Turk]

It's an NFL issue now...30 other teams are losing out on merchandise sales since they share merchandising revenue with all teams except Dallas who has their own revenue agreement by choice...

 

Snyder might be overruled by other owners who don't want to lose free money

[26CornerBlitz]

It's an NFL issue now...30 other teams are losing out on merchandise sales since they share merchandising revenue with all teams except Dallas who has their own revenue agreement by choice...

 

Snyder might be overruled by other owners who don't want to lose free money

 

Nothing changes while the case is being appealed.

 

'Redskins' Revoked a Second Time, but in a New Climate

The Washington Redskins' initial response to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s monumental decision to cancel the team’s trademark registration was to argue that the move was not so monumental. This is not the first time the office has come to that decision, a statement from the Redskins brags, and the team has come out on top before.

 

But the activists who have been campaigning against the name say this time the decision, coming from the agency's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, is different, owing both to legal bearings and the way the climate has evolved since Harjo’s initial suit.

 

What’s Next, Washington?

The U.S. Patent Office has canceled Daniel Snyder’s team trademark, ruling that it is disparaging to a “substantial composite” of Native Americans. But the battle over the word “Redskins” is far from over

Edited June 19, 2014 by 26CornerBlitz

[eme123]

ESPN Sportsnation online poll

 

Should the redskins change their name?

Yes- 37%

 

No- 63%

 

(Total Votes: 128,530 )

 

All 50 states favored 'No'.

New York voted 58% 'No'.

Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state

South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state

 

International Poll Total Votes: 36,820

Yes- 37%

No- 63%

[26CornerBlitz]

ESPN Sportsnation online poll

 

Should the redskins change their name?

Yes- 37%

 

No- 63%

 

(Total Votes: 128,530 )

 

All 50 states favored 'No'.

New York voted 58% 'No'.

Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state

South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state

 

International Poll Total Votes: 36,820

Yes- 37%

No- 63%

 

All of this is immaterial to the case.

[truth on hold]

"Redskins" spelled backwards is "Sniksder" .... I'd just go with that and call it a day

[eme123]

All of this is immaterial to the case.

 

Yes it has nothing to do with the case. This just seems to be the hot Redskins thread of the day.

 

I wish we had reputable poll results of American Indians on this issue.

[Beerball]

I wish we had reputable poll results of American Indians on this issue.

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

[Rocky Landing]

ESPN Sportsnation online poll

 

Should the redskins change their name?

Yes- 37%

 

No- 63%

 

(Total Votes: 128,530 )

 

All 50 states favored 'No'.

New York voted 58% 'No'.

Oregon voted 52% 'No'. -Left leaning state

South Carolina voted 72% 'No'. -Right leaning state

 

International Poll Total Votes: 36,820

Yes- 37%

No- 63%

That's an interesting poll. I just checked it out on the ESPN site. It certainly doesn't change my mind in the slightest, though. I have no desire to jump on that bandwagon.

[Greg F]

I will just leave this here.

 

In 2005, the Indian language scholar Ives Goddard of the Smithsonian Institution published a remarkable and consequential study of redskin's early history. His findings shifted the dates for the word's first appearance in print by more than a century and shed an awkward light on the contemporary debate. Goddard found, in summary, that "the actual origin of the word is entirely benign."

 

And for those interested Goddard's published paper is here (PDF).

[White Linen]

I could talk myself into being offended by nearly half the sports team names.

[Pneumonic]

Snyder must have a connection with a Senator somewhere. If I were him, I'd ask my Senator friend for a "scratch my back" favour to petition the USPTO on behalf of any number of high profile sports teams who may have a derogatory name asking them to rescind said name(s) immediately. I'd make the episode as public as possible to expose the USPTO for the corrupt office that they are and to draw to light the ridiculousness of this matter.

[NoSaint]

Should they have named the team Redskins? No. However, if you were to ask the general public, about two years ago, before this debate was brought up, what they think of when they hear Redskin, they'd prolly all say the football team. Point is, the meaning and connotations of certain words change over time.

 

There have been protests going on for 30 years! There have been similar court cases a decade and a half ago. It's not new, it's new to you.

[boyst]

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)

Social change means nothing legally, but hey, it sounds good. Change is good?

 

 

Public opinion isn't a legal argument.

But, it sounds great, now!

 

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.

I don't have an attachment to the name. I could care less if they change it or not. If I was Snyder I'd fight it hard. If 2014 goes down the drain I'd rebrand the team to hype them up and draw great attention to it. If finances are dipping it'd be great. Rebrand the Redskins, the National team?! RGIII bringing it back to the field, or Cousins coming out on fire, who knows... but using that to fuel 2015. That'd make a ton of money.

 

On the other hand, I just don't really care that some people may be offended. If you presented me data that showed 80% of Native Americans are offended by this I might be concerned a little more then I already am. Just like yelling more popular racial epithets in public you likely would not get the same reaction. Most would think you are just super fans of the Redskins.

 

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.

What about the rest of the Americans?

 

I wonder if this will be more fuel to having my high school (Lancaster) change its nickname.

There is a list, well, there are lists online that list every school with Redskin as a mascot.

 

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.

This story is getting a lot of face time while the whole non-prof situation of the NFL has been a big deal, too. The motivation is clearly financial. If the gov could get money from taxing the NFL more, well, that'd be just fine with them.

 

In Mississippi, you can order whatever size you want! (Of course, it's the most obese state in the country but still).

Well, because obese people who cannot decide what is best for them because they're dumb means I cannot have a Super XXL Jumbo Gigante Mt Dew? Really? So, because some people are stupid and waste their life and our resources means I should suffer more for them.

 

I get the argument but I do not support it and it is loosely relating what is going on to the Redskin situation. I'd be just as fine with taking those people and feeding them bacon lard.

 

If you don't care, then why care whether other people care if you care?

Because it gets old seeing it sensationalized and the smoke and mirror game people fall for...it just gets old.

 

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

I would like to know this, as well. And, at what % does it become a legal matter, which by my opinion is the only reason that the government should be involved? Petitions, threats, boycotts etc are all great by private citizens. But, the government being involved scares me because we will now be hearing that 1% does not matter enough, or 20% is still not enough.

Or, put like this:

If 3,140,000 are offended by this?

If 62,800,000 are offended by this?

 

With 314 Americans in this country it is likely that 40% do not care/have no interest/have no opinion/have no ability to make a decision. 30% do not like the name, 30% want it to remain.

 

What do we do? Who decides what we do? Why is this likely to be headed to the Supreme court?

[Big Turk]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

Everyone is offended by everything these days...gotta be all that estrogen

[DC Tom]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

Flip that on its head: what number of offended can we ignore? One? Two? Four?

[Rocky Landing]

Flip that on its head: what number of offended can we ignore? One? Two? Four?

Well, clearly that depends on what offends thee: racial slurs, or political correctness?

[26CornerBlitz]

6/18 Oneida Indiian Spokesman Joel Barkin talks Redskins Name with John Murphy <11:05>

[millbank]

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

what is does take for you people, the name is going to go and rightly so, it only a matter of time... so many of you pretend to take the high ground on other minority rights , you are flat out ridiculous and shameful

Edited June 19, 2014 by millbank

[DC Tom]

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

Except THAT'S NOT WHERE THE TERM CAME FROM. The Phips Proclamation is irrefutable, but "red skin" does not refer to the scalps collected therewith. That's a modern invention, because scalps are "bloody" hence "red skin," and people are too damn stupid to spend the ten minutes it takes blasting a hole in this ridiculous story.

[Greg F]

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

Then Baxter Holmes is an ignoramus. Perhaps you didn't see my post on the previous page.

 

And for those interested Goddard's published paper is here (PDF).

 

Unlike a ignorant Boston Celtics beat writer for The Boston Globe, Goddard is an Indian language scholar at the Smithsonian Institution. A small quote from Goddard's paper:

 

 

The earliest examples of redskin to be found so far are emblematic of the process of its adoption in English. In 1769 three chiefs of the Piankashaws, a Miami-speaking people then living on the lower Wabash River, sent to Lt. Col. John Wilkins four talks, written out for them in French, which were forwarded to London with translations and explanations in August of that year. Wilkins, the British commander in Illinois, had his headquarters at Fort Cavendish (the former Fort de Chartres), about 18 miles above Kaskaskia on the east bank of the Mississippi. He had the task of eliciting loyalty or at least peaceful behavior from the Illinois tribes, who were still strongly attached to the French four years after their surrender and departure, a disposition that had led to the assassination of the Ottawa war chief Pontiac by Peorias further upriver in Cahokia some months earlier (Kelsey 1979; Chevrette 1974). The “Old Sachem” Mosquito (French Maringouin) ended his first talk with an invitation:

 

“je serai flatté que tu Vienne parler toimeme pour avoir pitie De nos femmes et De nos enfans, et si quelques peaux Rouges te font Du mal je Scaurai soutenir tes Interests au peril De ma Vie” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 133).

 

This was translated as:

 

“I shall be pleased to have you come to speak to me yourself if you pity our women and our children; and, if any redskins do you harm, I shall be able to look out for you even at the peril of my life” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 137–138).

 

The more “severe” speech of the war chief and village chief called Hannanas (evidently a French nickname Ananas ‘Pineapple’) included these words:

 

“aparament que tu crois que je ne serai pas capable De rien Lorsque tu me privera de poudre et De balles, tu dois scavoir que je scais me servir de Bois pour faire mes armes et que avec ce meme bois ye tue Des hommes, … “… tu Crois que je suis Orphelin, mes tous les Gens De ces rivieres et tout les peaux rouges apprenderont ma mort” (Johnson 1921– 1965, 7: 135).

 

This was translated as:

 

“Apparently you think that I shall not be capable of anything when you deprive me of powder and ball. You must know that I know how to use wood to make my weapons and that with this same wood I kill men .… “… You think that I am an orphan; but all the people of these rivers and all the redskins will learn of my death” (Johnson 1921–1965, 7: 139).

 

I know this may come as a surprise to those who get their history lessons from sports writers that the first documented use of the term "redskins" comes from native Americans. In fact Goddard opens up the paper by dispelling the scalp myth:

 

One need not accept Harjo’s unfounded claim that the word redskin “had its origins in the practice of presenting bloody red skins and scalps as proof of Indian kill for bounty payments” to accept that many find the word objectionable in current use. But the actual origin of the word is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. It emerged at a specific time in history among a small group of men linked by joint activities that provided the context that brought it forth. Before its documented history can be traced, however, the false history given for it in standard reference books must be expunged.

[EasternOHBillsFan]

Don't post here in this part of TBD if you don't want to

The story in my family goes that the term dates back to the institutionalized genocide of Native Americans, most notably when the Massachusetts colonial government placed a bounty on their heads. The grisly particulars of that genocide are listed in a 1755 document called the Phips Proclamation, which zeroed in on the Penobscot Indians, a tribe today based in Maine.

Spencer Phips, a British politician and then Lieutenant Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Province, issued the call, ordering on behalf of British King George II for, “His Majesty’s subjects to Embrace all opportunities of pursuing, captivating, killing and Destroying all and every of the aforesaid Indians.” They paid well – 50 pounds for adult male scalps; 25 for adult female scalps; and 20 for scalps of boys and girls under age 12.

These bloody scalps were known as “redskins.”

 

- comes from article by baxter Holmes

 

what is does take for you people, the name is going to go and rightly so, it only a matter of time... so many of you pretend to take the high ground on other minority rights , you are flat out ridiculous and shameful

 

So, tell me this... what of the institutional genocide of tribal-tribal warfare? There are so many offended people out there who have NO IDEA how grisly warfare could be with no white men involved whatsoever, who simply parrot the same line of historical revisionists as if white men invented genocide and scalping.

 

Do you know what happened BEFORE this Proclamation? Of course not, because someone cut out a bit to suit an agenda. Big surprise...

[ExiledInIllinois]

"This is the second time the federal trademark board had issued an opinion on the case. A similar ruling from 1999 was overturned on a technicality in 2003."

 

Anybody catch this? It has obviously been on people's radar as offensive.

 

All Native Americans weren't even granted US citizenship until 1924. The Washington team formed 8 years later. The original owner must have had a concerned heart for Natives, that he wanted to honor and "mainstream" them into society. I wonder what his take was on the 1924 ruling was?

Edited June 19, 2014 by ExiledInIllinois

[Pondslider]

Everyone is offended by everything these days...gotta be all that estrogen

 

Change the name to the "Dumb !@#$ing White Guys" and make this the logo:

 

 

Everybody wins.

[Greg F]

All Native Americans weren't even granted US citizenship until 1924. The Washington team formed 8 years later.

 

The registered trademark in question was issued in 1967.

[millbank]

there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed

[ExiledInIllinois]

there is no talking with you people you just flat out shameful or just wishing to be adversarial for the sake of it .... and dont give me the superior intellect crap, it a shameful name and it will be changed

 

Exactly Mill. You reduced it to as simple as it gets and people still don't understand. They never will.

[RuntheDamnBall]

The last appeal took 4 years to conclude, so 4 more years of Redskins... 4 more years of whining about the "disparaging" name....

 

America is turning very soft.... congratuations. Pretty soon, the government will tell you what you can eat, can drink, etc for X reason or someone got offended.

 

Glad I'm older so I don't have to spend more time in THAT America.

Andy Rooney! LET'S GIVE IM A HAND EVERYBODY!

[poo]

Public opinion isn't a legal argument.

A silly thing to say in a country built on democratic participation. Prohibition, social security, trail of tears, legalized human bondage, both anti and pro-abortion laws: all these things were considered ridiculously pointless or outright evil before the majority of people wanted them. Public opinion is absolutely a basis for legal argument as public opinion shapes the law. The same outcry that takes away the Redskins name will bring marijuana to your nearest store. Hooray, court of public opinion! Hooray, America!

[ALF]

Just not worth the high profile controversy. They will start losing sponsors if this keeps up.

[Roger Goodell]

The Washington Redskins name has from its origin represented a positive meaning distinct from any disparagement that could be viewed in some other context. The name is a unifying force for the team's fans that stands for strength, courage, pride and respect.

[Beerball]

Don't post here in this part of TBD if you don't want to

Let me know when it became your job to tell people where/what to post.

 

So, tell me this... what of the institutional genocide of tribal-tribal warfare? There are so many offended people out there who have NO IDEA how grisly warfare could be with no white men involved whatsoever, who simply parrot the same line of historical revisionists as if white men invented genocide and scalping.

 

Do you know what happened BEFORE this Proclamation? Of course not, because someone cut out a bit to suit an agenda. Big surprise...

If you want to highlight man's inhumanity to man please don't begin or end here. Fill up the page with examples and don't stop until your fingers are bloody nubs.

 

 

All of which is beside the point. What is "right" here? Don't spout political correctness bull either. Tell me what is right. If you can honestly say that continuing with a name that truly offends a segment of the population is the right thing to do then I'm sorry to say that I have no use for you. Leave the Fighting Irish, Yankee etc. nicknames out of the equation until you can find me a people who are really and truly offended by their name. Leave the "this is all about the $$$" BS out of your reply. Reduce this to its lowest level please.

 

What is right?

[eme123]

What if there was? What % of offended people would be enough to tip the scales?

 

10%

20%

25%

 

There should never be a percentage that tips the scale. If 1% of native americans feel that they are being humiliated by the term Redskin then they need to get out in front of the issue and be the face.

 

Harry Reid is the wrong front man for your argument. Ray Harbriter, billionaire casino owner, is the wrong front man for your argument. This whole thing screams of a back room government power grab. Put the NFL on thin ice and gain negotiating power on dozens of other issues with $$ involved.

 

To me the real tragedy is that if there is real anger and embarrassment over the name then the small percentage of native american are too late to be taken seriously. The rational public knows when something smells like bull from the beginning and it never comes out of their nostrils.

[machine gun kelly]

FWIW - this topic is being discussed on NFL Radio this morning on Ross Tucker's two shows. The overwhelming majority seem to take the side of not changing the name. Mostly, politically motivated, etc.

 

 

Not my opinion, but if you want to chime in, call into the show.