Page 120 of 122 FirstFirst ... 2070110118119120121122 LastLast
Results 1,191 to 1,200 of 1219

Thread: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

  1. #1191
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    So was the US patent office disparaging of native Americans when they first issued the patent, or is this more political correctness?
    Well, since the Native American's have there own term that means pretty much the same thing, and when given the choice of what to name the Indian territory in the west, they chose that term (Okla Humma - which is now the State of Oklahoma and means Red People)... this is just another example of political correctness.

    If we were to remove every term in the US form of the English language that offends somebody (or at least five people as was in this case) we wouldn't have too many words left to communicate with.

  2. #1192
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Well, since the Native American's have there own term that means pretty much the same thing, and when given the choice of what to name the Indian territory in the west, they chose that term (Okla Humma - which is now the State of Oklahoma and means Red People)... this is just another example of political correctness.

    If we were to remove every term in the US form of the English language that offends somebody (or at least five people as was in this case) we wouldn't have too many words left to communicate with.
    And we agree! Howdy Beau!
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  3. #1193
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    And we agree! Howdy Beau!
    Howdy Monte... good to see you around.

  4. #1194
    Banned
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Location
    Powhatan County, VA.
    Last Seen
    08-01-14 @ 09:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    657

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Zyphlin View Post
    No it's not.

    A caricature is a picture where certain striking characteristics are exaggerated in order to create a comic or grotesque effect. That's not the case as it relates to the Redskins logo in any way, shape, or form. Quite the contrary, the logo was created and designed by a former president of the National Congress of American Indians, recieving input from various tribal leaders, in an effort to depict a respectable and accurate depiction as OPPOSED to a caricature.
    Well maybe you're right. The Redskins logo is totally respectable.

    What is your opinion on the Cleveland Indians logo? Do you feel it is "respectable and accurate"?

    index.jpg
    Last edited by Mosby; 06-26-14 at 12:16 AM.

  5. #1195
    Global Moderator
    Moderator

    Zyphlin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    NoMoAuchie
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    47,990

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosby View Post
    Well maybe you're right. The Redskins logo is totally respectable.

    What is your opinion on the Cleveland Indians logo? Do you feel it is "respectable and accurate"?

    index.jpg
    Personally I don't find it rather accurate or respectable, as the oversided grin, nose, etc and highly colorized skin do represent a caricature as I see no way that grin can be done for anything other than comic effect (comic doesn't necessarily mean "negative). I'm not a fan of the logo, but I'm also not personally offended by it. I can fully understand native americans, or others, being offended by it due to it being a clear caricature. I haven't honestly paid a lot of attention to any of the outrage or issues over that logo, or put much research in it, so I wouldn't feel I'd have a sound foundation to make a claim as to the level of offense towards it by the native american community or other such factors to really comment. But no, I don't find that logo to be similar to the Redskins logo or even the Blackhawks logo

  6. #1196
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:45 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,696

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Mosby View Post
    Well maybe you're right. The Redskins logo is totally respectable.

    What is your opinion on the Cleveland Indians logo? Do you feel it is "respectable and accurate"?

    index.jpg
    But this where things get kinda ridiculous though. Its a sports team logo. Caricature was common. Disrespect is not intended. There are still the same handful of people running around clamoring for attention over the stupidest of things. Or...I guess the Catholics should all be really really really really really really angry.
    Padres Logo.jpg

  7. #1197
    Sage


    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:42 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    8,354

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Beaudreaux View Post
    Anyone can use any name that isn't protected by trademark. What this is, is an attack on the ability of the team owners to protect their brand and make money from that brand. It was the government saying that the name of the company was "offensive." How many other companies are next?

    Should the federal government have the power to harm a private company that is not breaking any laws? Because that's exactly what they just did.
    The federal government had that power for a long time.

    U.S. law denies legal protection for names and logos that “disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.”

    If you want to educate yourself on the matter, instead shoot from the hip, this is the 99-page decision: USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92046185
    "I never meant to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it." --J.S. Mill

  8. #1198
    Sage
    Montecresto's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Last Seen
    03-13-16 @ 11:59 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    24,561

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    The federal government had that power for a long time.

    U.S. law denies legal protection for names and logos that “disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.”

    If you want to educate yourself on the matter, instead shoot from the hip, this is the 99-page decision: USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92046185
    That's very interesting, and what we have to run with then. Still, arguing that doing something that's bad is good on the merits that its been that way for a long time isn't a good argument. Looks like the government should be stripped of that power.
    Killing one person is murder, killing 100,000 is foreign policy

  9. #1199
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by MTAtech View Post
    The federal government had that power for a long time.

    U.S. law denies legal protection for names and logos that “disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute.”

    If you want to educate yourself on the matter, instead shoot from the hip, this is the 99-page decision: USPTO TTABVUE. Proceeding Number 92046185
    What a very respectful way of responding to another member. You must be a lot fun at family holiday dinners?

    You see? The difference between what I state, and what you state, is that I refer to the what the actual law says, and not what the Executive Branch agency just assumed they had the power to do. The law (all that really matters) refers to granting an application, not rescinding a previously granted mark. Two thing matter here; the LAW, and, the language of that LAW. Not the assumed power of an Executive Branch agency that they granted themselves via their own interpretation. And, that is why I said that the government just got themselves another lawsuit. Once this is adjudicated in a REAL court, and not just in an internal hearing by the Executive Branch, I then may have a different opinion. And, even if the law is ruled to grant this action, the Congress can overrule that by simply passing a bill, since the Constitution gives Congress the sole power to promulgate copyright, trademark and patent law, not the Executive Branch. If you'd like, I can give you the citation from the United States Constitution and the Law (which was referenced in the links you provided by the way) so you can (as you said to me) educate yourself properly before you just shoot from the hip (which I only re-state to you so you can see how hateful and disrespectful that statement sounds).

    Basically, until an actual court from the Judicial Branch, not the Executive Branch, rules on this, all either you or I can do is have an opinion which is what this site is all about and I fail to see the reason to be so rude in your response to me. Neither of our opinions mean anything other than what we feel is correct. I rely on the Constitution and the Law to form my opinion, however, that is still just my opinion and doesn't mean anything as nor does yours, legally. That's why we have courts, in the Judicial Branch of the US Government. So far, this has not been heard in a real court. Hence, again, my statement that the Executive Branch (the government as I stated previously) has gotten themselves what will surely be a lawsuit from the Washington Redskins that will end up in a real court.

  10. #1200
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Montecresto View Post
    That's very interesting, and what we have to run with then. Still, arguing that doing something that's bad is good on the merits that its been that way for a long time isn't a good argument. Looks like the government should be stripped of that power.
    They may. IMO, they overstepped their power that is actually granted in the law. Don't be mislead, this is not a ruling from a court in the Judicial Branch, but rather a ruling by an internal board of review in the Executive Branch. This will still probably go to court in the Judicial Branch and could even force Congress to act since they're the branch of government granted the actual power in the Constitution. All that link provides (which I read as soon as this decision came down - not when he posted it here) is the Executive Branch's interpretation of the power they assume that they have, not the actual Law, and it contains a number of contradictions between what the Law actually says and what this ruling describes it as saying.

Posting Permissions

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