• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Patent office cancels Redskins trademarks

I don't know. Your link was a jpg.

However, since the "feel like it" standard was apparently used in this case, I imagine it must be there, or they wouldn't have used it.

My bad, that was the new logo for the Alabama Mandingos

Here's the trademark info
AdSlogans.com -- Wise Words/10
 
You're a Skins fan, yes?

What do you think Snyder will ultimately do? Change the name, or leave it? Just curious what the buzz is among their fans (if you know of any).

My thoughts have largely been the same on this. The name will change due to three potential factors:

1. Keeping the name causes a significant financial impact to Dan Snyder (Multiple major sponsors leaving, major fan boycott). If such a situation happens then I think he'll end up changing it. The trademark case alone is unlikely to cause this. They can potentially persue a common-law argument to still combat against people using the name "Washington Redskins" in a for-profit way. Additionally, I believe Forbes estimate on franchise worth suggested that merchandising accounted for less than $200 million of the $1.7 Billion the franchise is worth. And a fan boycott to any significant degree is unlikely to happen...hell, it's more likely that a boycott would occur DUE to a name change.

2. The NFL, either having issue with having a team without a trademark or being unhappy with the financial issues itself, forcing the Redskins to change the name.

3. The government finding some fashion of forcefully getting involve, either by forcing a change or perhaps bribing the Redskins to change the name by offering to fully fund a stadium within the city if the name is changed

Those are the three main ways I can see the name changing anytime in the next 20 years. Beyond that it's too hard to really grasp where and how society is going to stand and how ownership of the team will really be. I see them as possabilities, but not inevitabilities. There's a lot of things that have to fall into place for them to happen, and the fact is that it's incumbant upon other things forcing the status quo to change as opposed to the status quo defending why it needs to remain.

2.
 
If <1% were offended (the mod team) I would have to change it. Of course, I'm not sure who I am marginalizing and profiting off of. ;)

So what's objectionable is that the Redskins are making a profit?

And you think they are making a profit because of their name?
 
So, you're saying we should abolish property rights, too?

No. Maybe you should stick to racial slurs. That is in your wheelhouse.
 
I have no problem with that remedy. Free speech is preserved while the government refuses to protect the commercial value of it.

Wow, that means we can ****-can copywrites, as well!
 
So what's objectionable is that the Redskins are making a profit?

And you think they are making a profit because of their name?

Zyphlin suggests that people might boycott if they did change their name.
 
My thoughts have largely been the same on this. The name will change due to three potential factors:

1. Keeping the name causes a significant financial impact to Dan Snyder (Multiple major sponsors leaving, major fan boycott). If such a situation happens then I think he'll end up changing it. The trademark case alone is unlikely to cause this. They can potentially persue a common-law argument to still combat against people using the name "Washington Redskins" in a for-profit way. Additionally, I believe Forbes estimate on franchise worth suggested that merchandising accounted for less than $200 million of the $1.7 Billion the franchise is worth. And a fan boycott to any significant degree is unlikely to happen...hell, it's more likely that a boycott would occur DUE to a name change.

2. The NFL, either having issue with having a team without a trademark or being unhappy with the financial issues itself, forcing the Redskins to change the name.

3. The government finding some fashion of forcefully getting involve, either by forcing a change or perhaps bribing the Redskins to change the name by offering to fully fund a stadium within the city if the name is changed

Those are the three main ways I can see the name changing anytime in the next 20 years. Beyond that it's too hard to really grasp where and how society is going to stand and how ownership of the team will really be. I see them as possabilities, but not inevitabilities. There's a lot of things that have to fall into place for them to happen, and the fact is that it's incumbant upon other things forcing the status quo to change as opposed to the status quo defending why it needs to remain.

2.

Thanks Zyphlin. Very interesting thoughts. I agree with all of them.

BTW you mentioned Jon Huntsman's terrible campaign managers in a different post on this thread. You & I share the same frustration there. I worked on his primary campaign here in NH and you were spot on about those idiots!
 
Zyphlin suggests that people might boycott if they did change their name.

Really?

And a fan boycott to any significant degree is unlikely to happen...hell, it's more likely that a boycott would occur DUE to a name change

He's right.
 
I have no problem with that remedy. Free speech is preserved while the government refuses to protect the commercial value of it.

So then who exactly benefitted here, Calamity?

The NAs weren't out in droves demanding the name change and cease of use of that image anywhere.
The fans didn't seem to care.
The NFL didn't seem to care.
The name's been around for how many decades?
 
Really?

And a fan boycott to any significant degree is unlikely to happen...hell, it's more likely that a boycott would occur DUE to a name change

That's what I said. :lol:
 
9 out of 10 people enjoy gang rape. Do you have a poll that says otherwise?

Nope, I'm just going off anecdotal evidence of some people I know who have been gang raped.

Do YOU have a poll that says what you're claiming? If so...then you're actually arguing from a point of hard evidence against my anecdotal evidence. If you don't, then your arguing from the same anecdotal stance as me, and are demonstrating a poor comparison.
 
That's what I said. :lol:

I know. I edited my post to add the "he's right".

Nobody watches football that I'm aware of because they want to see manifestations of social issues. They love the game. The name is irrelevant. I also think a lot of people are tired of the government input into everything, even something as small as a sport's team name.
 
It offends 10%. That's enough for me. Why do you think offense should be put to a vote?

Why you do think being offended should matter in terms of law?
 
So then who exactly benefitted here, Calamity?

The NAs weren't out in droves demanding the name change and cease of use of that image anywhere.
The fans didn't seem to care.
The NFL didn't seem to care.
The name's been around for how many decades?
The future benefited in that we are evolving away from one more stupid thing we thought acceptable in the past.
 
Wow, that means we can ****-can copywrites, as well!

You, me and the entire Chinese industrial complex can now buy a silk screen machine, print Redskin Gear on everything under the sun until we run out of ink and sell it at a few bucks a shot without anyone demanding a cut.
 
Where is the right to a patent in the Constitution?

That seems a bit off topic. Patent law exists and since it is law they can't use it to restrict speech.
 
Zyphlin suggests that people might boycott if they did change their name.

I suggested there'd be a better chance of a protest occuring by fans if the name IS changed than there is to get the hane changed. I was not suggesting either was actually likely to occur. Nor did I suggest the protests would be specificlly due to the name, but rather the name change would help cause it. The protests would likely be due to anger with the team/nfl/congress (depending how it occured) for changing what has long been an integral part of the identity of the team.

I'd think there'd be a better chance of a Protest occuring by fans if they decided to change the colors from Burgundy and Gold than there would be for a protest by fans against the name.

A study was recently talked about on the radio around here where a University measured fan motivations for loyalty and the spending of money for various sports franchises. The top motivating factor for the Redskins, similar to the Packers and Steelers, was the notion of legacy/tradition. This is likely in large part due to the fan base experiencing their greatest joys almost 2 to 3 decades ago and have been rather poor since then, so there's a strong identity with the past. Changing parts of that tradition....of which the name, the colors, the fight song are integral parts...will likely have a significant impact within the fan base.
 
Thanks Zyphlin. Very interesting thoughts. I agree with all of them.

BTW you mentioned Jon Huntsman's terrible campaign managers in a different post on this thread. You & I share the same frustration there. I worked on his primary campaign here in NH and you were spot on about those idiots!

Would be fun to discuss in another thread...but yeah; most incompetent campaign strategy and management I've ever seen.
 
Nope, I'm just going off anecdotal evidence of some people I know who have been gang raped.

Do YOU have a poll that says what you're claiming? If so...then you're actually arguing from a point of hard evidence against my anecdotal evidence. If you don't, then your arguing from the same anecdotal stance as me, and are demonstrating a poor comparison.

I am illustrating the tyranny of the majority.
 
The future benefited in that we are evolving away from one more stupid thing we thought acceptable in the past.

No, only in terms of the Washington Redskins football team. By your own admission, nothing else is going to change. The image will prevail, as that image is really everywhere.
 
I suggested there'd be a better chance of a protest occuring by fans if the name IS changed than there is to get the hane changed. I was not suggesting either was actually likely to occur. Nor did I suggest the protests would be specificlly due to the name, but rather the name change would help cause it. The protests would likely be due to anger with the team/nfl/congress (depending how it occured) for changing what has long been an integral part of the identity of the team.

I'd think there'd be a better chance of a Protest occuring by fans if they decided to change the colors from Burgundy and Gold than there would be for a protest by fans against the name.

A study was recently talked about on the radio around here where a University measured fan motivations for loyalty and the spending of money for various sports franchises. The top motivating factor for the Redskins, similar to the Packers and Steelers, was the notion of legacy/tradition. This is likely in large part due to the fan base experiencing their greatest joys almost 2 to 3 decades ago and have been rather poor since then, so there's a strong identity with the past. Changing parts of that tradition....of which the name, the colors, the fight song are integral parts...will likely have a significant impact within the fan base.

Yep. It would sever the emotional attachment to the team. It would be like an expansion team coming in.
 
You, me and the entire Chinese industrial complex can now buy a silk screen machine, print Redskin Gear on everything under the sun until we run out of ink and sell it at a few bucks a shot without anyone demanding a cut.

Well, that's a bit simplistic and not entirely true.

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.
 
Why you do think being offended should matter in terms of law?

"Redskin" is not being outlawed. The government is just not going to protect the term with regards to trademarking.
 
Last edited:
"Redskin" is being outlawed. The government is just not going to protect the term with regards to trademarking.

Is that somehow supposed to mean it's not a violation of the first amendment?
 
I suggested there'd be a better chance of a protest occuring by fans if the name IS changed than there is to get the hane changed. I was not suggesting either was actually likely to occur. Nor did I suggest the protests would be specificlly due to the name, but rather the name change would help cause it. The protests would likely be due to anger with the team/nfl/congress (depending how it occured) for changing what has long been an integral part of the identity of the team.

I'd think there'd be a better chance of a Protest occuring by fans if they decided to change the colors from Burgundy and Gold than there would be for a protest by fans against the name.

A study was recently talked about on the radio around here where a University measured fan motivations for loyalty and the spending of money for various sports franchises. The top motivating factor for the Redskins, similar to the Packers and Steelers, was the notion of legacy/tradition. This is likely in large part due to the fan base experiencing their greatest joys almost 2 to 3 decades ago and have been rather poor since then, so there's a strong identity with the past. Changing parts of that tradition....of which the name, the colors, the fight song are integral parts...will likely have a significant impact within the fan base.

The "Skins" could be an acceptable compromise.
 
Back
Top Bottom