• 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

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.
 
Not my problem, so I'm moving on.
 
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:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Actually, they kinda are:



and

I see the word application in both those quotes.

This wasn't an application, it was an active patent.
 
Do you really think "the government" cares if they win or lose? They work with unlimited funds. They don't give a damn. They'll spend the team broke. And spend US broke in the process. And if the team wins punitive damages? We'll lose again. This is jack-boot control of private enterprise. It is scary.

Government run amok and forcing decisions where they have no business doing so. Find the moron who signed off on this and rake him or her over the coals. I can't understand why people don't trust the government... :lamo
 
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.

How many people are offended by any number of college sports team names? This move is absolutely capricious in that it singled out one team name and did not remove all similarly "offensive" other names in all contexts.
 
Actually, they kinda are:



and

Thanks for posting that. As I said, I'm not a patent attorney.

I do wonder though, if the law also gives them the power to do so retroactively? The statute you reference discusses rejection of an application, not the removal of existing protection granted under the law. That would be a good cause for action against the government, as arbitrary application of the law.
 
Doubt it will go that far. They will lose in Federal Court... again. They didn't challenge the sitting President before in 2003.

You may very well be correct. But I feel that given his history, the owner of the Redskins will fight this.
 
Thanks for posting that. As I said, I'm not a patent attorney.

I do wonder though, if the law also gives them the power to do so retroactively? The statute you reference discusses rejection of an application, not the removal of existing protection granted under the law. That would be a good cause for action against the government, as arbitrary application of the law.

No, they do not have such power constitutionally. However, traditionally quite a lot of constitutional overreach centers around the patent office. The SCOTUS has effectively killed the framer's greatest gift to our country - the Public Domain.
 
You may very well be correct. But I feel that given his history, the owner of the Redskins will fight this.

Probably. And if it enters the mainstream media at Fox/CNN/MSNBC, the blaming will start...
 
The Fighting Irish offends me. Notre Dame, you're in the crosshairs.
 
No, they do not have such power constitutionally. However, traditionally quite a lot of constitutional overreach centers around the patent office. The SCOTUS has effectively killed the framer's greatest gift to our country - the Public Domain.

Very true... Copyright forever, less a day.

 
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.

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. :shrug: How is a Titan related to Tennessee? :thinking

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.)
 
Government run amok and forcing decisions where they have no business doing so. Find the moron who signed off on this and rake him or her over the coals. I can't understand why people don't trust the government... :lamo

I can almost guarantee this kind of **** comes from the administration. Obama asking his staff, "What else can we do to get this done?"
 
Back
Top Bottom