06-20-2014, 10:05 PM
My guess is that they come out ahead by the bur ha ha. The people who buy Redskins merchandise obviously (by the fact that they buy the merchandise) don't care that the name is offensive. And the true fans might buy more to send a message in support of the team. That being said, one analysis suggests that the Redskins do stand to lose "in theory".
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/new...led-uspto/
That being said, unlike a right to free speech, there is no constitutional right to trademark protection. The government is not obligated to provide trademark protection, except in accordance with the US code (which I cited, and which specifically says that offensive trademarks are disallowed, as are other categories, for example geographic trademarks regions Champaign). Trademarks exist primarily for the benefit of the consumer, not the benefit of the mark owner. From the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Other_aspects): "Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics."
There is little real danger that denizens of the Redskins will be misled into watching a second rate pro-am team take the field at the local high school field [insert your own joke here].
BC
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/new...led-uspto/
Quote:As a result of the cancellation, the Redskins have far more limited federal trademark protection to stop counterfeits and other businesses from commercially exploiting their name in selling merchandise and apparel. In theory, the Redskins and their owner, Daniel Snyder, could lose millions of dollars as a result of the cancellation. Revenue sharing by NFL teams on licensing contracts means the 31 other franchises could stand to lose millions as well.
That being said, unlike a right to free speech, there is no constitutional right to trademark protection. The government is not obligated to provide trademark protection, except in accordance with the US code (which I cited, and which specifically says that offensive trademarks are disallowed, as are other categories, for example geographic trademarks regions Champaign). Trademarks exist primarily for the benefit of the consumer, not the benefit of the mark owner. From the wikipedia page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark#Other_aspects): "Trademark law is designed to fulfill the public policy objective of consumer protection, by preventing the public from being misled as to the origin or quality of a product or service. By identifying the commercial source of products and services, trademarks facilitate identification of products and services which meet the expectations of consumers as to quality and other characteristics."
There is little real danger that denizens of the Redskins will be misled into watching a second rate pro-am team take the field at the local high school field [insert your own joke here].
BC