Beerball Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 No it's not. The thread is about the USPTO. Isn't it? That's been a consistent (albiet not constant) complaint in this thread: the USPTO's action is capricious and inconsistent. But every time that's brought up, the response tends to be "But 'Redskins' is offensive!" Nope, I'm told that I need to narrow my focus. This thread is about the ruling that the patent office made and whether that was legal. You need to catch up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 No it's not. The thread is about the USPTO. Isn't it? That's been a consistent (albiet not constant) complaint in this thread: the USPTO's action is capricious and inconsistent. But every time that's brought up, the response tends to be "But 'Redskins' is offensive!" Explain how the USPTO's action is capricious? They have been working on this for 15 years and even before that a bunch of years to get to their original decision. It has been anything but capricious. and the USPO is the one who is suppose to do this? Yes. I think it is within their constititutional power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Explain how the USPTO's action is capricious? They have been working on this for 15 years and even before that a bunch of years to get to their original decision. It has been anything but capricious. Because they're selectively enforcing their own restriction on offensiveness. When do they cancel "Functioning Retard?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 When do they cancel "Functioning Retard?" I am not sure, jump on "Functioning Slow." They can't possibly take that away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Because they're selectively enforcing their own restriction on offensiveness. When do they cancel "Functioning Retard?" Be a hero, lodge a complaint. Meanwhile, back on topic... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 Because they're selectively enforcing their own restriction on offensiveness. When do they cancel "Functioning Retard?" I'm not sure if anyone ever trademarked "Functioning Retard." But, if they did, and the trademark is more than 20 years old, it would likely stand under appeal. The term, "functioning retard," was not a derogatory term twenty years ago, whereas, "redskin" has been a pejorative for a long, long time. Just another in a long list of false comparisons in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EasternOHBillsFan Posted June 27, 2014 Share Posted June 27, 2014 The term, "functioning retard," was not a derogatory term twenty years ago, whereas, "redskin" has been a pejorative for a long, long time. Really? So if it has been for a "long, long time", why didn't this patent decision happen in 1990? 1978? 1974? 1967? Once again, statements are made based on opinion and not fact. "A long, long time" must be 15 years I guess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Landing Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 Really? So if it has been for a "long, long time", why didn't this patent decision happen in 1990? 1978? 1974? 1967? Once again, statements are made based on opinion and not fact. "A long, long time" must be 15 years I guess. It has been a pejorative since the early 1800s at the latest. You either acknowledge history, or you don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FireChan Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 It has been a pejorative since the early 1800s at the latest. You either acknowledge history, or you don't. Why did it come into question in 1999. Is that when the USPTO got their "offensive" powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Caveman Posted June 28, 2014 Share Posted June 28, 2014 (edited) Why did it come into question in 1999. Is that when the USPTO got their "offensive" powers? 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. Edited June 28, 2014 by Captain Caveman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted June 29, 2014 Share Posted June 29, 2014 One person's perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted July 14, 2014 Share Posted July 14, 2014 From the guy who knows race and hate crime, as he is an expert after what happened in Florida... ESPN - U.S. Attorney general Eric Holder calls Redskins' nickname offensive, says it should be changed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts