Page 11 of 122 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 1219

Thread: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

  1. #101
    User
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Midwest
    Last Seen
    06-19-14 @ 12:45 AM
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    65

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Mason66 View Post
    OMG. What is Chrysler Corporation going to do with the Jeep CHEROKEE? Could it be next?
    What about teams names

    The Braves and The Seminoles

  2. #102
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by CanadaJohn View Post
    It will be interesting as well to see if the NFL takes up the side of Snider and the Redskins in this, protecting their corporate and property rights that have been attacked here.
    True. It will also be interesting to see how it may affect professional sports as a whole given the racial tone of the NBA debacle with the LA Clippers; what's more important, freedom of speech or political correctness.

  3. #103
    Sage
    shrubnose's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    Europe
    Last Seen
    11-29-17 @ 03:46 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    18,851
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Not my problem, so I'm moving on.

  4. #104
    Guru
    soot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Last Seen
    04-25-17 @ 03:28 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    4,308

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    I feel that the US government just got itself a HUGE civil lawsuit from the owners of the Washington Redskins. I'm not a patent attorney, but I feel sure that 'not hurting someone's feelings' aren't mentioned in the requirements for a trademark.
    Actually, they kinda are:

    1504.01(e) Offensive Subject Matter

    Design applications which disclose subject matter which could be deemed offensive to any race, religion, sex, ethnic group, or nationality, such as those which include caricatures or depictions, should be rejected as nonstatutory subject matter under 35 U.S.C. 171. See also MPEP § 608. Form paragraph 15.09 should be used.
    and

    15.10 Offensive Subject Matter

    The disclosure, and therefore the claim in this application, is rejected as being offensive and therefore improper subject matter for design patent protection under 35 U.S.C. 171. Such subject matter does not meet the statutory requirements of 35 U.S.C. 171. Moreover, since 37 CFR 1.3 proscribes the presentation of papers which are lacking in decorum and courtesy, and this includes depictions of caricatures in the disclosure, drawings, and/or a claim which might reasonably be considered offensive, such subject matter as presented herein is deemed to be clearly contrary to 37CFR 1.3. See MPEP § 608.
    I guess it makes enough sense as far as it goes.

    Just in the interest of common decency a business shouldn't be able to claim a cartoon silhouette of an enormous penis, or an exaggerated, stereotypical likeness of an individual (something as in the image below) as a trademark.

    index.jpg

    I guess the only real question is, "How far do you actually take it?"

    Virtually anything can be considered offensive by somebody, so what's the standard where society has to step in and say, "You know what? We appreciate that you find the Nike "Swoosh" offensive because you lost your eye to a horrible fishing hook accident when you were a boy, but the "Swoosh" image is fairly innocuous and acceptable to society in general so we're going to have to go ahead and let Nike do their thing".

    When you get to something like the Redskins patent and trademark you've potentially got a large number of people who might be directly offended and you're probably treading much closer to the kind of terrain where a large segment of the population would be supportive of that large number of people who would be effected directly.

    Bottom line here is that I think the Redskins franchise definitely has grounds to fight this decision but at the same time I think the U.S. Patent Office is on pretty firm regulatory footing in the decisions they've reached.

    While many of us may not agree with the decision, it certainly wasn't capricious nor is it completely impossible to understand where it came from or why it was reached.
    Last edited by soot; 06-18-14 at 01:44 PM.
    “Now it is not good for the Christian’s health to hustle the Aryan brown,
    For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles and he weareth the Christian down;
    And the end of the fight is a tombstone white with the name of the late deceased,
    And the epitaph drear: “A Fool lies here who tried to hustle the East.”

  5. #105
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicnam View Post
    What about teams names

    The Braves and The Seminoles
    I was wondering how they picked their target too. The 5 offended people probably aren't Seminole Indians. I can see why the Seminoles are safe from attack. The Braves may be their next target.

  6. #106
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by shrubnose View Post
    Not my problem, so I'm moving on.
    Oh yeah? Why the heck did you stop by?

  7. #107
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    (none)
    Last Seen
    04-04-15 @ 09:11 PM
    Lean
    Communist
    Posts
    6,112
    Blog Entries
    1

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by soot View Post
    Actually, they kinda are:



    and
    That was good information. Most of us (myself included) were not aware of this.

  8. #108
    Sage

    Mason66's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:39 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    19,444

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicnam View Post
    What about teams names

    The Braves and The Seminoles
    I am sure there is a list, but I think they go after the richest first to set a precedent.

  9. #109
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:13 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicnam View Post
    What about teams names

    The Braves and The Seminoles
    They say that they don't mind those. The Redskins is a problem because it focuses on the skin color; or so they say. They compare it to a team being called the Boston Whiteskins, or the Seattle Yellowskins, or the San Antonio Brownskins, or the Atlanta Blackskins. The problem with that comparison, is that those terms were never historically used to describe a people. And, there are historical records where Native Americans called themselves redskin in the past. It's just political correctness gone too far.

    No matter what you do, someone will be pissed; in whatever you do, regardless of the topic.

  10. #110
    Educator voyager1's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Atlanta
    Last Seen
    05-23-16 @ 12:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    974

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    There's one place I feel it will definitely go... to court, against the Obama Administration in the form of the US Patent Office.
    Doubt it will go that far. They will lose in Federal Court... again. They didn't challenge the sitting President before in 2003.

Page 11 of 122 FirstFirst ... 9101112132161111 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •