Redskins lose their trademark

[Moranis]

If the decision stands that means pretty much anyone can use the name and past logos (though the current one is still trademarked) for whatever purpose they want, which could significantly affect the Redskins bottom line and might actually force the issue of their name.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/11102096/us-patent-office-cancels-washington-redskins-trademark

[D.o.s.]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

[jambr380]

First the Bullets, now the Redskins...

Watch out Capitals, you're next!

[fairweatherfan]

Losing trademark will force a name change faster than all the protesting on Earth.  If they start losing that revenue, they'll adapt fast.  Fine with me, it's always seemed like an embarrassment, even though a lot of fans get defensive at the prospect of a switch.

[ACF]

http://www.esquire.com/_mobile/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning?click=promo

[saltlover]

Losing trademark will force a name change faster than all the protesting on Earth.  If they start losing that revenue, they'll adapt fast.  Fine with me, it's always seemed like an embarrassment, even though a lot of fans get defensive at the prospect of a switch.

Maybe, maybe not.  They lost it in 1999, but a court overturned it in 2003.  This is a continuation of that 1999 case.  Snyder is the NFL's Sterling, in terms of suing anyone he can, so I don't see this ending any time soon.

[Mencius]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

[Moranis]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things. 

[Mencius]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

[Moranis]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

[Kane3387]

There's precedent for overturning this. Likely nothing to see here. Lawyers for the team are confident they'll prevail...again.

However, The previous ruling was overturned on "standing" grounds because the appellate court found the plaintiffs in that lawsuit had waited too long to make a complaint (the team had copyrighted the name in 1967). This group of plaintiffs is much younger, so if the appellate court reverses this time, it will have to find a different reason.

[Mencius]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

[Bombastic Jones]

There's precedent for overturning this. Likely nothing to see here. Lawyers for the team are confident they'll prevail...again.

However, The previous ruling was overturned on "standing" grounds because the appellate court found the plaintiffs in that lawsuit had waited too long to make a complaint (the team had copyrighted the name in 1967). This group of plaintiffs is much younger, so if the appellate court reverses this time, it will have to find a different reason.

The 2003 appeal involved laches, not standing.  That makes it more interesting because laches is an equitable affirmative defense and judges can use public policy to justify ignoring the defense.

The Redskins' attorney claims that the plaintiffs failed to provide any evidence regarding the Native American population view on whether the mark was disparaging at the time it was registered.  That seems interesting to me as an appellate issue.

Also, I have read that there are common law trade mark protections that Washington could use.  I have no idea whether that is accurate though.

[fairweatherfan]

Losing trademark will force a name change faster than all the protesting on Earth.  If they start losing that revenue, they'll adapt fast.  Fine with me, it's always seemed like an embarrassment, even though a lot of fans get defensive at the prospect of a switch.

Maybe, maybe not.  They lost it in 1999, but a court overturned it in 2003.  This is a continuation of that 1999 case.  Snyder is the NFL's Sterling, in terms of suing anyone he can, so I don't see this ending any time soon.

Yeah, it's assuming it holds up.  I'm not familiar with the legal specifics or well-equipped to interpret them, so I don't know what the odds are of that, but if it does stick, I'd expect the name change will happen very shortly afterward.

[Neurotic Guy]

The Team's gotten this overturned before, but I like it.

Dan Snyder remains stubbornly tone deaf (at best).

Said the deaf man.  Tone deaf would actually be changing the name.  Poll after poll after poll confirms overwhelming support for retaining the name.

yeah but the masses are often wrong on these types of things.

Sometimes.  I don't think they are in this case.  In any event, my comment addressed the observation that Snyder is tone deaf.  A great many Native Americans don't have a problem with it either, and in fact have shown support for Snyder in retaining the name.  I don't particularly care much whether they retain the name or not.  This is more an opportunity for pseudo moral preening than it is about any sort of "hate."  Is anybody really "hating" or disparaging Redskins any more than they are Cowboys, or Irish, etc, etc.

the fact that you are even equating the Redskins with the Cowboys, pretty much proves you can't trust the masses.

It boils down to whether you think the name is a pejorative or not, much as with any other identifying word.  If you associate the word Redskin with negative things, then it's a pejorative, if not, it's not.  If you associated the word Irish with negative things, it'd be a pejorative.  There's a lot of phony outrage that is nothing more than transparent status signaling.

I think the issue is more complicated and less phony than you think it is.  A great deal of what leads to prejudice takes place in the subconscious and is based on the formation and confirmation of stereotypes.  When it involves a historically discriminated against and segregated racial group I think it creates a complex issue and shouldn't be brushed aside.  The fact that a poll suggests that some portion of Native Americans are OK with the trademark is only one of many contributing considerations.