ThurmanThomasEnglishMuffin Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 There is plenty of room for a savvy marketer to make due with the WFT and WTF cognitive double take. I think WFT should take the NFC East this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrDawkinstein Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 On 6/21/2021 at 12:46 AM, Mr. WEO said: Wrong. "McCaulay on Wednesday retained a lawyer who is planning to send a letter to team owner Daniel Snyder offering “to open the door to discussions so that, if the franchise is at all concerned about Mr. McCaulay’s trademark registrations or pending applications, the team is aware that there is nothing to fear.” McCaulay “has no intention to stand in the way of the Washington NFL team,” says the letter, signed by Florida attorney Darren Heitner. “Mr. McCaulay will gladly do whatever is in his power to clear a path for the Washington NFL team to rebrand itself without the need to incur substantial legal fees,” "In a 2015 interview with The Washington Post, McCaulay said he had spent more than $20,000 on trademarks applications and considered it a “high-risk investment.” He said this week, though, that if the team wants to pursue a name he has laid claim to, he would be willing to hand it over at no cost." Even if the guy wants $100k, just pay it. It's (another) bad look for Snyder. Just buy the name and move on. Wouldn't have even been a news story. But now we all know he got out-maneuvered by some nobody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 22, 2021 Share Posted June 22, 2021 3 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said: Even if the guy wants $100k, just pay it. It's (another) bad look for Snyder. Just buy the name and move on. Wouldn't have even been a news story. But now we all know he got out-maneuvered by some nobody. Snyder has had many bad looks over the years. Not paying some dude for a name on what truly is a lame list of team names isn't mine of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDingus Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 On 6/20/2021 at 7:57 AM, machine gun kelly said: I’ll say something I almost never do, but respectfully disagree. The Tuskegee Airmen were one of the most heroic stories on WW2, and broke the barrier as you guys may know allowing African American men to be pilots which then sparked the development of the Air Force division post WW2. Not the only reason, but it’s cited as one of many contributing factors. This embodies heroism, courage, and progress. Redskin is pretty obvious as a derogatory depiction of native Americans. I just read a story in Forbes of he is one of the grandsons of one of the Redtails. He went on and on what pride of his country, his football team, and what a positive symbol of the progress our country has evolved to name the nations capital after those brave war hero’s. Besides, can you imagine how they could play it up with one of those vintage planes at the front of the stadium, doing a fly by before games with those Redtails planes. It would be a marketing bonanza for a team that is just getting over a scandal on top of the public pressure to change the name. Lastly, most of the articles I’ve read have stated in polling the two names with the most fan appeal in the Washington area are the Redtails, and the Red Wolves. No, you're right about how there's a lot to be proud of with the Redtails, but naming the team after them would be construed as swinging the pendulum too far back in the other direction, like an over-correction to appeal to another ethnic group. People would cry about it being part of a liberal agenda, call for boycotts (even though those same people probably cry about cancel culture), and have opportunistic politicians using it as a way to gain political favor by screaming about how "woke" the NFL has become. Even if the Tuskegee airmen were heroes & an inspiring story, the Redskin name was dropped due to being a racial issue. They're probably better off avoiding anything remotely tied to race, no matter how positive, in their name going forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBBills Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 1 hour ago, BigDingus said: No, you're right about how there's a lot to be proud of with the Redtails, but naming the team after them would be construed as swinging the pendulum too far back in the other direction, like an over-correction to appeal to another ethnic group. People would cry about it being part of a liberal agenda, call for boycotts (even though those same people probably cry about cancel culture), and have opportunistic politicians using it as a way to gain political favor by screaming about how "woke" the NFL has become. Even if the Tuskegee airmen were heroes & an inspiring story, the Redskin name was dropped due to being a racial issue. They're probably better off avoiding anything remotely tied to race, no matter how positive, in their name going forward. What sucks is people now look for any reason to call something racist so even naming them the redtails would allow idiots to respond. The world just sucks anymore. 3 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
djp14150 Posted June 24, 2021 Share Posted June 24, 2021 On 6/19/2021 at 11:18 PM, TroutDog said: https://www.washingtonpost.com/sports/2021/06/19/washington-football-team-trademark-refused/ Interesting to me. They go from fighting tooth and nail to keep the former name (of which they allowed the TM to lapse) and now they are having difficulties in trade marking the new generic name. To be honest, I kind of like WFT. Edit: oh, by the way, this has nothing to do with Covid or Beasley so this thread has that going for it. 😃 For a long time people knew the name was racist and they need to change it. Many fans went in and copy and trademarked names the team could be renamed to as well as web sites. these people are asking for over a million for the name rights. the one name that has been popular is to rename it after the Tuskegee airman nickname of red tails. But from that I see them being known as tail chasers which the front office of the team got hammered with 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigDingus Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 19 hours ago, TBBills said: What sucks is people now look for any reason to call something racist so even naming them the redtails would allow idiots to respond. The world just sucks anymore. Hey, I'm with you there man. It's nearly impossible to even have a conversation about it without it derailing into political buzzwords & insults. Everything is either called racist, or it's seen as pandering/woke by the other side. It's just become a back & forth exercise in stupidity. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 6/20/2021 at 9:33 AM, Doc said: It was a dumb rejection by the USPTO. Oh cool a trademark attorney. Do share why. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
What a Tuel Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 (edited) Didn't some jerk trademark a bunch of the names he thought the team would take in an effort to pretty much extort Snyder into buying it from him? Isn't this why they just haven't picked the redtails or generals or monuments or whatever? Yes, here it is: Washington Redskins replacement names trademarked by one man - CNN Edited June 25, 2021 by What a Tuel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cba fan Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 6/22/2021 at 2:44 PM, Old Coot said: WTF - What the F*** does that mean? Washington Team Football. but of course just for the joke aspect is why it came up. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RiotAct Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 On 6/24/2021 at 5:06 AM, TBBills said: What sucks is people now look for any reason to call something racist so even naming them the redtails would allow idiots to respond. The world just sucks anymore. yep. Matter of time before the Buffalo Bills are renamed… (only half-joking) 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Punching Bag Posted June 25, 2021 Share Posted June 25, 2021 5 hours ago, What a Tuel said: Didn't some jerk trademark a bunch of the names he thought the team would take in an effort to pretty much extort Snyder into buying it from him? Isn't this why they just haven't picked the redtails or generals or monuments or whatever? Yes, here it is: Washington Redskins replacement names trademarked by one man - CNN In same article you cited without link: From Tue July 14, 2020: https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/14/us/washington-nfl-trademark-spt-trnd/index.html Quote However, he's not some sort of trademark troll trying to make a quick buck. In fact, he's the opposite. Despite holding trademarks for a number of potential team names, McCauley said that he offered them for free in writing on July 4. However, he said that he has not been contacted by the team or the NFL. They probably could get a name for minimum amount (less than cost for one of $nyder's dinner parties) and some box seats for guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 On 6/25/2021 at 8:55 AM, John Adams said: Oh cool a trademark attorney. Do share why. Because they allowed "Washington Football Club." To a squatter, no less. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 52 minutes ago, Doc said: Because they allowed "Washington Football Club." To a squatter, no less. Thats not an answer based on trademark law. Try again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 (edited) 31 minutes ago, John Adams said: Thats not an answer based on trademark law. Try again. Where in the law does it say that "club" is acceptable and "team" isn't? Or that they constitute the same exact thing? Edited June 27, 2021 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 1 hour ago, Doc said: Where in the law does it say that "club" is acceptable and "team" isn't? Or that they constitute the same exact thing? It's in the decision: The office said trademarks given for the "Washington Football Club" to a man named Philip McCauley in 2015 could cause confusion among consumers, according to Sports Illustrated. Additionally, the office said the name is problematically generic. "Consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties," the patent office said Friday of its refusal, SI reported. Pretty straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 (edited) 4 hours ago, Mr. WEO said: It's in the decision: The office said trademarks given for the "Washington Football Club" to a man named Philip McCauley in 2015 could cause confusion among consumers, according to Sports Illustrated. Additionally, the office said the name is problematically generic. "Consumers would be confused, mistaken, or deceived as to the commercial source of the goods and/or services of the parties," the patent office said Friday of its refusal, SI reported. Pretty straightforward. Yeah, I could see people getting confused, mistaken or deceived...by goods and/or services that were never offered in the first place and are never going to be offered, for obvious (to most) reasons. LOL! Again, stupid decision. Your tax dollars at work. Edited June 27, 2021 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 8 minutes ago, Doc said: Yeah, I could see people getting confused, mistaken or deceived...by goods and/or services that were never going to be offered. LOL! Again, stupid decision. The decision isn't based on what or how many good or services a trademark holder has or has yet to produce, doc. That you don't understand it doesn't make it "dumb"...that's just how it works. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 (edited) 10 minutes ago, Mr. WEO said: The decision isn't based on what or how many good or services a trademark holder has or has yet to produce, doc. That you don't understand it doesn't make it "dumb"...that's just how it works. This isn't something done by robots. Everyone knows the other guy was a squatter with no intention of doing anything other than trying to extort money from Snyder (Oh wait, you believed him when he claimed otherwise ). Edited June 27, 2021 by Doc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr. WEO Posted June 27, 2021 Share Posted June 27, 2021 40 minutes ago, Doc said: This isn't something done by robots. Everyone knows the other guy was a squatter with no intention of doing anything other than trying to extort money from Snyder (Oh wait, you believed him when he claimed otherwise ). No, not by robots (whatever the f that means). The guy made some T-shirts for sale with the names he trademarked on them, thus satisfying the prior use requirement for trademarking. The law allows for this, hence the existence of squatting. It doesn't matter if you like it or not (either). Anyway, how much did the squatter extort from Snyder so far? He offered the WFC name a year ago. Obviously Snyder doesn't want it (or he would have taken it). The ONLY reason that Snyder applied for the trademark on WFT is because fans are taking to it and it is selling merchandise. He was too stupid to come up with another name, so now he has to or anyone can produce and legally sell WFT merch. Oh, and the squatter guy applied for the "WFT" trademark before Snyder--yet he hasn't been granted it either. Simple... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts