[BostonCard]

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

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

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/busine...skins-gear

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

[BostonCard]

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

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

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/busine...skins-gear

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