snopes.com  

Go Back   snopes.com > SLC Central > Social Studies

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #321  
Old 12 June 2014, 05:53 PM
Avril's Avatar
Avril Avril is offline
 
Join Date: 07 August 2002
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 10,543
Default

It might be less problematic without the history of the team, its mascot, and its fans with their horrifying cheers. As it is, they need a clean break with Native American imagery.

I am not annoyed, as some others say they are, by Indian Head Cornmeal, and I buy it more frequently than any other kind of cornmeal--an example of a less problematic use of Native American imagery, in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #322  
Old 13 June 2014, 03:33 AM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,558
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Avril View Post
Maybe they could put a Klingon on their helmets instead.
The official team drink will be prune juice!
Reply With Quote
  #323  
Old 13 June 2014, 03:47 AM
lyriccoloratura's Avatar
lyriccoloratura lyriccoloratura is offline
 
Join Date: 17 September 2006
Location: Cambridge, MA
Posts: 686
Default

That's my favorite gatorade flavor
Lyric-go gators, go!-coloratura
Reply With Quote
  #324  
Old 13 June 2014, 07:56 AM
Mosherette's Avatar
Mosherette Mosherette is offline
 
Join Date: 21 February 2000
Location: Nottingham, England
Posts: 15,172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crocoduck_hunter View Post
The official team drink will be prune juice!
They can have a targ mascot!
Reply With Quote
  #325  
Old 18 June 2014, 03:54 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,242
Baseball Washingtong Redskins stripped of trademarks due to 'disparaging' name

http://www.ctvnews.ca/sports/washing...name-1.1874590

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be cancelled.

The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn't immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal, which is likely....

....The decision means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect the financial interests connected to its use. If others printed the name on sweatshirts, apparel, or other team material, it becomes more difficult to go after groups who use it without permission.
Now that they will get kicked in the assets, we'll see how long "tradition" holds out.
Reply With Quote
  #326  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:03 PM
Aimee Evilpixie's Avatar
Aimee Evilpixie Aimee Evilpixie is offline
 
Join Date: 20 January 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 12,810
Hello Kitty

HAH! Suck it, Washington Racists!
Reply With Quote
  #327  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:04 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Judge

I'm sure there will be a lengthy appeal process, but this is wonderful news, and a fabulous example of multiple approaches. I hope "Chief Wahoo" is next.
Reply With Quote
  #328  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:28 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,982
Default

One commenter says this means they should go after (among others) the New Jersey Devils. Is he just spouting gibberish? I thought the Devils were named after the bat-like humanoid creature said to inhabit the pine barrens.

Last edited by GenYus234; 18 June 2014 at 04:29 PM. Reason: sense more make
Reply With Quote
  #329  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:37 PM
snopes's Avatar
snopes snopes is offline
 
Join Date: 18 February 2000
Location: California
Posts: 109,645
Ponder

But since canceling the trademark means that anyone can use the Redskins name and logo with impunity, won't the immediate result of that act be a proliferation of them?
Reply With Quote
  #330  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:43 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,110
Default

If it holds up, and that's a big if, the effect that they are hoping for, I think, is for the NFL and the other owners to put pressure on Snyder to change it. Because of the way revenues are shared in the NFL, the loss of trademark protection, and therefore eventual loss of revenue, will affect all the teams, not just Washington.

I suspect the appeal will succeed on standing grounds, as it did once before, though. But I admit I haven't looked at it in any detail, so that's just an off the cuff analysis.
Reply With Quote
  #331  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:47 PM
crocoduck_hunter's Avatar
crocoduck_hunter crocoduck_hunter is offline
 
Join Date: 27 May 2009
Location: Roseburg, OR
Posts: 12,558
Default

The article I read stated that the previous case was overturned due to a technicality based on the age of the plaintiffs (they were too old). The plaintiffs in this case are younger and therefore the case is expected to hold up better, apparently.
Reply With Quote
  #332  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:51 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,110
Default

Do you have a link? That sounds strange.
Reply With Quote
  #333  
Old 18 June 2014, 04:54 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

I think the point of the age of the plaintiffs was that they should have filed earlier.
Reply With Quote
  #334  
Old 18 June 2014, 05:06 PM
erwins's Avatar
erwins erwins is offline
 
Join Date: 04 April 2006
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 12,110
Default

Yeah, I found it. The grounds for dismissing the previous suit was the doctrine of laches, which basically means that you've let the alleged injury go on for too long to protest about it now. So yes, by using younger plaintiffs they should get past the laches doctrine. I had read that it was an issue of standing, which isn't really what laches is, and wouldn't be age related.
Reply With Quote
  #335  
Old 18 June 2014, 06:12 PM
A Turtle Named Mack's Avatar
A Turtle Named Mack A Turtle Named Mack is offline
 
Join Date: 21 June 2007
Location: Marietta, GA
Posts: 21,451
Default

I am bothered by giving leeway to the USPTO to disallow a trademark on the basis that the trademark is offensive to someone, or even a substantial group. Trademark is a type of property and the ability to invalidate that property is the ability to destroy that property. Making the property contingent on the subjective assessment of administrators allows too much leeway for political pressure and expediency. It would be significantly different if a determination were made before substantial effort had been expended on developing an identity and association with that trademark. For instance, when the owners of The Tilted Kilt applied a few years ago for a trademark, if the USPTO had rejected the registration because it was offensive to kilt-wearing ethnic groups, there would not be an established property in the name, and so the owners could seek another identifier for their chain of cheeky-themed restaurants. Later on, if a trademark is not worth maintaining because people reject association with that name or product – as people essentially did with the Washington Bullets – then the trademark will lose its value and the owner may see fit to retire usage of it. But to allow an agency to destroy an established property without proper compensation to the owner is disturbing.
Reply With Quote
  #336  
Old 18 June 2014, 06:27 PM
Chloe's Avatar
Chloe Chloe is offline
 
Join Date: 13 September 2004
Location: Kentucky
Posts: 39,316
Default

But this is existing law, and has been around for nearly 70 years. Why should it not be applied in this case?

Some examples of previous applications are cited here:

http://blogs.wsj.com/corporate-intel...ve-trademarks/
Reply With Quote
  #337  
Old 10 September 2014, 02:01 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,242
Baseball

Etsy bans 'Redskins' name and logo from its website

http://www.ctvnews.ca/business/etsy-...site-1.2000124

Quote:
WASHINGTON -- Etsy says it is banning the Washington Redskins nickname and logo from its website.

In a blogpost, Etsy's policy manager said the company understands both sides of the debate over the name, but added: "In no uncertain terms, Native American groups have consistently advocated and litigated that the term 'redskin(s)' is disparaging and damaging to Native Americans. Therefore, it will no longer be permitted in our marketplace."
Hopefully, the groundswell of action like this will force Snyder's hand. I'm not holding my breath, but hopefully it will come.
Reply With Quote
  #338  
Old 10 September 2014, 02:13 PM
GenYus234's Avatar
GenYus234 GenYus234 is online now
 
Join Date: 02 August 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 25,982
Default

Since Etsy is a marketplace of user-created or second-hand content, I doubt any royalties were paid to the Redskins from sales from it. At this point, only severe monetary loses will sway Snyder IMO. If retail outlets like Amazon or Sports Authority refused to deal in Redskins goods, then it might affect his decision.
Reply With Quote
  #339  
Old 10 September 2014, 03:31 PM
Dr. Dave Dr. Dave is offline
 
Join Date: 28 June 2005
Location: Montgomery County, MD
Posts: 5,279
Default

Hijack question that is not related to whether or not the name should be changed, companies should stop using the name, etc? The question is about Etsy and licensing.

If someone sells homemade sweaters with logos from NFL, MLB, etc, is that legal without paying a licensing fee?
Reply With Quote
  #340  
Old 10 September 2014, 03:39 PM
UEL's Avatar
UEL UEL is offline
 
Join Date: 01 August 2004
Location: Fredericton, Canada
Posts: 9,242
Baseball

Quote:
Originally Posted by GenYus234 View Post
Since Etsy is a marketplace of user-created or second-hand content, I doubt any royalties were paid to the Redskins from sales from it. At this point, only severe monetary loses will sway Snyder IMO. If retail outlets like Amazon or Sports Authority refused to deal in Redskins goods, then it might affect his decision.
I'm with you. But this might sway another company, or people, that do financially have a stake in the Washington Football Team's profile. Or, it might help sway other companies from supporting the selling of logo or licenced material.

I listened to a podcast during my walk home yesterday about how to effect change on a large scale (scientist tracked how change occurs). I wish I had listened a bit more closely as he did talk about change from the grassroots.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Redskins snopes Language 6 24 June 2014 02:38 AM
Turkey drop for real? Valitudinarius Rex Critter Country 33 27 November 2013 04:30 AM
CSI causes drop in crime rate snopes Crime 17 14 February 2011 08:07 PM
Drop guns snopes Crime 39 19 May 2008 07:44 AM
You Could Have Heard a Pin Drop Natiam Inboxer Rebellion 0 14 March 2008 01:37 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.