Page 14 of 122 FirstFirst ... 412131415162464114 ... LastLast
Results 131 to 140 of 1219

Thread: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

  1. #131
    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 Top Cat View Post
    I can see why you'd like the guy. He has made your life much easier.
    What the heck does this mean?

  2. #132
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Last Seen
    07-19-17 @ 03:51 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    60,458

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    This feelings hurt nonsense is getting way out of hand.

  3. #133
    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 Beaudreaux View Post
    Guess we have to get rid of any reference to Daniel Boone; Coon skin cap and all. The Tennessee Hillbillies would have worked - I don't think anyone that has a voice in any of the politically offendable certified groups would have objected to that one? But who knows nowadays? Anythings possible.
    Daniel Boone and Hillbillies were Titans of their time.

  4. #134
    Preserve Protect Defend
    Beaudreaux's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Covfefe, NC
    Last Seen
    12-14-17 @ 05:00 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    15,566

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    That's easy. The answer is 4 or less. It requires 5 to be considered a general consensus.
    Okay... that made me laugh out load. Well done.

  5. #135
    Sage
    Gaius46's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    New York
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 06:15 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    8,495

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

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



    and



    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.

    Attachment 67168392

    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.
    What you quoted would seem to apply only during the application process not, not once an application is granted. Trademarks can be worth a small fortune and cost a small fortune to change. Being able to yank a trademark once granted seems to me to be manifestly unjust.


    This can be appealed to the Federal Circuit court and I'm guessing the Patent Office decision will be stayed while the appeals process is underway. As I understand it the Federal trademark doesn't impart a whole lot of benefits and the team retains significant common law rights. Sounds to me like it's more a symbolic gesture than anything.

    And someone noted the earlier patent office decision was tossed by an appeals court. That was because the plaintiffs lacked standing - they were too old (not sure what that had to do with anything I'm just quoting something I saw in the times). It was thrown out on the merits.
    Don't be a grammar nazi - Marcus Aurelius, Meditations, Book 1 #7

  6. #136
    Professor

    Join Date
    May 2013
    Last Seen
    06-21-17 @ 12:55 PM
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    1,577

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    The big and powerfull owner of a football franchise feels like he is being unfairly treated?
    You do realize that rebranding costs +millions of dollars correct?

  7. #137
    Noblesse oblige
    Ockham's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    New Jersey
    Last Seen
    01-27-17 @ 07:23 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian - Right
    Posts
    23,909
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by CycloneWanderer View Post
    You do realize that rebranding costs +millions of dollars correct?
    That doesn't matter when gubamint needs to pander to their base. These are all "fat cat" owners anyway so this is a victory strike for the 99% you see.
    “I think if Thomas Jefferson were looking down, the author of the Bill of Rights, on what’s being proposed here, he’d agree with it. He would agree that the First Amendment cannot be absolute.” - Chuck Schumer (D). Yet, Madison and Mason wrote the Bill of Rights, according to Sheila Jackson Lee, 400 years ago. Yup, it's a fact.


  8. #138
    Sage
    VanceMack's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Last Seen
    Today @ 11:48 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    54,715

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Unitedwestand13 View Post
    What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?
    They shoulda maybe applied their efforts to **** that....you know...matters...

    0.jpghelpreservations.jpg

  9. #139
    Guru
    PerfectStorm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Last Seen
    12-15-17 @ 01:52 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    4,182

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by vasuderatorrent View Post
    When the Texas Oilers moved to Tennessee some people suggested the Tennessee Coons since coons are ferocious, adaptive and native to Tennessee. They couldn't use the name Oilers because it wasn't relevant to Tennessee. They chose the name Titan instead. How is a Titan related to Tennessee?

    The Tennessee Coons would have been a relevant name but I can see how it would have been construed as offensive by some people. (At least 5 people.)
    There is a replica of the Greek Parthenon in Nashville, so there's that.
    "When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic." -- Benjamin Franklin

  10. #140
    Phonetic Mnemonic ©
    radcen's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Look to your right... I'm that guy.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:47 PM
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    33,433

    Re: Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

    Quote Originally Posted by Arbo View Post
    Wait, let me get this right… so the government, which has pushed the team to change it's name, has unilaterally decided the team name is 'bad', so it unilaterally acted and voided their trademark? And the same government agency did this previously, and the courts reversed them? So they wasted tax payer money in the courts, were shown they were wrong by the courts, and are now going to waste more tax payer money in the courts (because it will again go to the courts)? Do they think if they just keep doing it eventually they will get a judge that agree's with them?
    Heard on the radio, so I don't have a link, but, supposedly...

    1) The trademark is still in force while it winds its way through the courts, and

    2) The previous case was lost (by the government) on a technicality. They're hoping to correct the technicality.

    For whatever that's worth.
    If you claim sexual harassment to be wrong, yet you defend anyone on your side for any reason,
    then you are a hypocrite and everything you say on the matter is just babble.

Posting Permissions

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