First, you absolutely can't do that right now. They have somewhere between 30 to 60 days (not sure exaclty) to appeal, during which they're still protected. Once the appeal occurs, they're still protected. So you're not at that point yet.
Second, even if the court does uphold the decision this time, it's still not a slam dunk that you can get away with selling that stuff in the states without an injunction. I don't know the in's and out's of the law, but legal experts I've been hearing/reading have suggested there's at least a chance that a case can be made under common law that the Washington Redskins have utilized the name exclusively within the public arena for so long that they can still legally combat other individuals that attempt to utilize their name in a way that is clearly referencing the team as a means of making a profit.
"I am appalled that somebody who is the nominee...would take that kind of position"
"A court took away a presidency"
"...the brother of a man running for president was the governor of the state..."
It's horrifying because Trump is blunt instead of making overt implications.
Just so I'm clear, what the PO has done is to allow more entities than the Redskins to utilize a disparaging trademark?
If 10% of the population is offended by something, does the government now have the right to force a change to comply with the wishes of those 10%? Theoretically, anything in our society can offend 10% of the population, especially a society that has over 300 million people. Think of the possibilities.
What's to stop 10% of the apple farmers here in New England from saying they are offended that Microsoft is trying to represent Apples as technology instead of fruit?
There's a Mexican restaurant chain here in NH called "Shortys". What's to stop 10% of the little people population from forcing them to change the name (something that they could probably ill afford to do)?
What's to stop 10% of the blondes in this country from demanding that "Easy Blonde" beer no longer be manufactured because it offends us?
What's to stop 10% of the white people from saying that "Cracker Barrel" is offensive, forcing them to also change the name, marketing, sigs, ads, etc.?
I wondered what they would come up with. This appears to be it.
"I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it." --Benjamin Franklin 1776