The CardBoard
Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand (/thread-7294.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Controversial Mascot Names in the News - USPTO Takes a Stand - martyup - 06-20-2014

A government agency has now decided that after 82 years of use, the Redskins should no longer use their tradename.  [In an effort towards tolerance, the balance of my original post has been redacted.]

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - FarmBoy - 06-20-2014

Quote:A government agency has now decided that after 82 years of use, the Redskins can no longer use their tradename.

My understanding of the ruling differs. The trademark office isn't saying you can no longer use the name. Rather, they can no longer have sole control over its use. From an ESPN article:

Quote:The ruling does not force the NFL or Snyder to change the name, but trademarks registered between 1967 and 1990 will no longer be protected under federal law if the NFL and the Redskins lose an appeal to the U.S. District Court.


Nerd Pride - martyup - 06-20-2014

While that may be true due to legal restraints in their charter, I don't think they made the ruling with the intent that the name be more broadly used.  I believe the ruling was an attempt to effectively punish the team for continuing to use the name. 

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - OutsiderFan - 06-20-2014

I learned what the term "redskin" meant in college and was shocked that it was socially acceptable enough to be used as a team nickname at the time, or ever, frankly.  If anyone doesn't know what it means, which I imagine is most (though maybe not on this forum), they would be as shocked as I was that it was ever used.

As for the "creeping clampdown on freedom," not so fast. http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601105/U-Ute-Tribe-reach-agreement-on-continued-use-of-Utes.html?pg=all The Seminoles also embrace FSU's use of the name because it's authorized.

St. John's changed its name from "Red Men" to "Red Storm" for similar reasons the Redskins are being pressured to abandon that nickname. 

It's a bit of a mystery to me why "Indians" had to be changed at Stanford, while the Cleveland Indians use the term without a whole lot of outrage.

What is most bothersome about the Redskins situation is that it's gone on so long.  The politicians in Washington aren't exactly profiles in courage, only now trying to get on the right side of history on the issue.   

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - cardfan09 - 06-20-2014

If you can't tell the difference between the term "nerd" and a racial epithet for a group of people that have experience systemic genocide and oppression for hundreds of years, then I don't know what to tell you.

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - yvonne - 06-20-2014

I really applaud what the University of Utah is doing. It's truly an attempt to honor the people who lived in the region.  I can't say the same for Florida State University, with its war chant and tomahawk chop.

By the way, I think the Onion gets it right here.  http://www.theonion.com/articles/redskins-kike-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

Re: Nerd Pride - 82lsju - 06-20-2014

(06-20-2014, 11:02 AM)martyup link Wrote:While that may be true due to legal restraints in their charter, I don't think they made the ruling with the intent that the name be more broadly used.  I believe the ruling was an attempt to effectively punish the team for continuing to use the name.

well they are trying to punish them economically.  It will be interesting to see if lots of people start making t-shirts etc with the official logo and underselling the officially licensed NFL products......

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - washingtonismoney - 06-20-2014

Look, the difference between "Nerd Nation" -- or "Fighting Irish" or "Celtics" -- is pretty simple: the offended group deciding to assume the name as a point of pride. The name was picked by a racist and is being upheld by a white dude; I don't exactly know of a lot of Native Americans who have played, owned, or participated with the Washington team.

If you're in favor of the name "Redskins," ask yourself this: would you address a Native American by the term "Redskin"?

(ALSO, read this: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/true-redskins-meaning)

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - oman - 06-20-2014

Or call him a Gamecock?

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - FarmBoy - 06-20-2014

I'm personally of the camp that the R*****s should capitulate and change their name. If there are enough people who are truly offended by the term, then it should be changed. Yes, there's evidence that the term originates from a Native American. And yes, there are NA high schools that use the mascot. But there are also a lot of black people who call other black people n***** and I wouldn't be surprised if there was a sports league where a team used n***** in their team name. But I would find a professional sports team with the name n**** incredibly offensive.

The disconnect here is that most Americans have very little interaction with Native Americans. There are so few. I honestly don't have any friends of NA descent. So I have no personal experience with how offensive it is. And NA's aren't referenced in our culture nearly as often as black people. So we don't have examples from popular media of the anger that the use of the term can elicit. So brobdingnagian swaths of Americans have no point of reference as to whether R****** is an offensive term or not to the average NA. So it makes it easier for the Washington team management to shape the narrative, spread anecdotes that justify the use, and pretend like it's not a big deal.

Don't blame the USPTO - BostonCard - 06-20-2014

They are just following the law (US Code Title 15, Section 1052(a)):

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052

Quote:No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.

(emphasis mine)

The Redskins are not barred from using the name, nor of marketing merchandise that bears the team logo or name.

Here's an article about the ruling:

http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/yes-redskins-can-still-sell-redskins-gear

Quote:The ruling makes it harder to defend against counterfeit imports from abroad -- but it’s not like the team is suddenly very vulnerable.

“Generally speaking, if someone is selling counterfeit Redskins gear, Redskins would still be able to go to court to shut them down,” says UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh.

The ruling is more symbolic than anything else.  Congress made a law (whether you agree with it or not, laws regarding trademarks are covered under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution), and the USPTO is making a reasonable interpretation of that law.  Snyder and the Redskins are able to appeal the ruling through the courts, and if the courts determine that the the USPTO inappropriately applied the law in revoking the Redskins trademark, then they can overturn the USPTO's ruling.  We have a system of checks and balances, and so far, I don't see the source of outrage that you do.  To sum up:

So, to sum up, the USPTO has legal authority to refuse registration of a trademark that may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute [note, one technical aspect is that the law says "refuse registration"; I don't know if revoking registration is the same thing].  The ruling does not infringe on the Redskins continued use of the name, or even of their ability to sue counter fitters, and the Redskins have the right to appeal the ruling to the courts.

BC

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - martyup - 06-20-2014

(06-20-2014, 11:19 AM)cardfan09 link Wrote:If you can't tell the difference between the term "nerd" and a racial epithet for a group of people that have experience systemic genocide and oppression for hundreds of years, then I don't know what to tell you.

I wasn't attempting to equivocate the terms.  My fear is that this ruling will put us on a slippery slope that may lead a banning of such terms as "nerd".  When the government starts deciding which words society cannot use, we have lost at least a part of our First Amendment rights.  It strikes me as inconsistent that the rights of the KKK and pornographers are protected while those of a business owner are not.  For over 200 years, the First Amendment has protected free speech, even when most have found that speech offensive.  The free market has done a pretty good job of weeding out what is judged as undesirable by society.  I am not ready to hand that responsibility over to government bureaucrats.

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - OutsiderFan - 06-20-2014

Nobody is saying the word can't be used, so speech isn't being impeded.  It's the profiting from the name that is being discouraged.

Who's going to claim "nerds" is somehow "actionable?"  It doesn't fit the definition of what is considered to be in violation of trademark law.

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - Stanford_Cardinals - 06-20-2014

Trademarks and any other intellectual property rights actually aren't "free market"; they are government-granted monopolies. Because of the fixed costs of starting a business and the risk involved in doing so, society has decided to grant these monopoly rights. So, denying trademark protection is actually returning the Washington Football Team That Shall Not Be Named to the free market.

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - martyup - 06-20-2014

(06-20-2014, 12:53 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Nobody is saying the word can't be used, so speech isn't being impeded.  It's the profiting from the name that is being discouraged.

I'm pretty confident that the groups that have been pushing to have the term banned, want it banned. 

http://blogs.seattletimes.com/take2/2014/06/18/why-were-banning-the-redskins-nickname-in-the-seattle-times/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2013/10/san-francisco-chronicle-to-stop-using-redskins-176321.html

There are hundreds of businesses and products that were named using Native American tribe names and nicknames.  Do we want the government to interfere with their ability to protect their tradenames?  I am not trying to equivocate or judge their offensiveness, but just a few examples are: Red Man Tobacco, Tillamook Dairy Products, Jeep Cherokee, Chief Auto Parts, Indian Motorcycles, Apache Corporation, and Minnetonka Moccasins.

The following would be more funny if it wasn't so close to the truth:

http://www.intellihub.com/federal-government-orders-20-u-s-states-change-names-indian-words-deemed-offensive-native-americans/

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - martyup - 06-20-2014

(06-20-2014, 01:03 PM)Stanford_Cardinals link Wrote:Trademarks and any other intellectual property rights actually aren't "free market"; they are government-granted monopolies. Because of the fixed costs of starting a business and the risk involved in doing so, society has decided to grant these monopoly rights. So, denying trademark protection is actually returning the Washington Football Team That Shall Not Be Named to the free market.

Good point regarding the purpose of patent and trademark laws.  However, protection is only really needed for desirable trade names.  The free market will decide if a trade name is offensive and, therefore, undesirable and unprofitable.  The movement to seek a change in the mascot of the Washington football team is part of the free market.  Had the movement hurt the profitability of the team, a name change might have been made voluntarily.  Here the government is using it's powers to affect the free market.



Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - Stanford_Cardinals - 06-20-2014

My point is that it's a bit odd to be upset that the government is using a tool that is inherently anti-free market to disrupt the free market.

Regardless, you assume that in the case of an NFL team there is a mechanism to combat racist attitudes. However, your argument rests on perfect competition; that if a team name is truly offensive, another team would be able to set up shop in Washington and generate greater profits, eventually driving the first team out of business. The NFL is a cartel with limited entry, so it isn't possible for this competition to materialize like it would be, say, with a corner grocery store.

Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - OutsiderFan - 06-20-2014

Can't there just be things we think are unacceptable to our society, that our duly elected government makes effort to prevent?  Why does every government action have to be a slippery slope that leads to the loss of our freedom?

Aren't we happy it is illegal to dump toxic waste into waterways that provide our drinking water?  Why can't we be happy the use of horribly offensive names is being curtailed, even if later rather than sooner?



Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - oman - 06-20-2014

(06-20-2014, 02:18 PM)OutsiderFan link Wrote:Can't there just be things we think are unacceptable to our society, that our duly elected government makes effort to prevent?  Why does every government action have to be a slippery slope that leads to the loss of our freedom?

Aren't we happy it is illegal to dump toxic waste into waterways that provide our drinking water?  Why can't we be happy the use of horribly offensive names is being curtailed, even if later rather than sooner?

Well, the comparison between comparing the terms nerds and Native Americans just became a whole lot more acceptable after the comparison between regulating toxic waste and regulating offensive words.



Re: A Blow to Native Pride and American Freedom - GoodGrief - 06-20-2014

Someone on this board (who was it?) put it all in perspective for me regarding Native American team names, whether derogatory or not. He said that if you steal a peoples lands and try to wipe them out entirely, you don't get the right to pay "tribute" to them by making them your mascot. When he posited the idea of a German soccer team named "The Fightin' Jews" that sealed the issue for me.