• 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

PerfectStorm said:
The Fighting Irish offends me. Notre Dame, you're in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...

The Fighting Irish was their second choice. Their first choice was the Drunken Irishman. That name was rejected by the patent office.
 
PerfectStorm said:
The Fighting Irish offends me. Notre Dame, you're in the crosshairs.
Click to expand...

Exactly, it offends because the mascot and drawings infer the Irish are overtly violent and subsequently law breakers. As well the logo depicts a balding male, which makes balding men feel violent and insecure about themselves, therefore apt to more violence. Yep. Reject their patent logo and TM of anything to do with that icon, be it graphical or written word.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
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.)
Click to expand...

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.
 
This feelings hurt nonsense is getting way out of hand.
 
Beaudreaux said:
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.
Click to expand...

Daniel Boone and Hillbillies were Titans of their time. :shrug:
 
soot said:
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.

View 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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
CycloneWanderer said:
You do realize that rebranding costs +millions of dollars correct?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
What about the 5 Native Americans who brought the original suit? Should they have just remained silent?
Click to expand...
They shoulda maybe applied their efforts to **** that....you know...matters...

0.jpghelpreservations.jpg
 
vasuderatorrent said:
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.)
Click to expand...

There is a replica of the Greek Parthenon in Nashville, so there's that.
 
Arbo said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
vasuderatorrent said:
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.)
Click to expand...

Current trend of adopting meaningless ***** names that won't offend anybody (who can sue).
 
Henrin said:
This feelings hurt nonsense is getting way out of hand.
Click to expand...

And do you believe anybody's feelings are really hurt? If I objected to a team name I simply would not attend the games, would not watch them on TV, would not buy their merchandise, and, if I felt it was sufficiently insulting and offensive, might express my opinion about it in a letter to the editor or call the local radio talk show people.

But what is really offensive about the term 'Redskins' when associated with a popular sporting event with fans who are proud of their team and cheer it on and regard it fondly? Yes, a generic Native American caricature is used but it is not one that is insulting but rather endearing and shown in a positive light. Nobody sees Notre Dame's 'fighting Irish' as offensive. The Seminole Indians, to their credit, gave the Florida Seminoles a green light to continue to use their tribal name proudly. That's the attitude that should be promoted I believe.

Nobody can tell somebody else what they OUGHT to feel about anything. But if I was a Native American, I would personally be proud that I was seen as worthy to represent something the American people see as a good, healthy, all-American institution.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And do you believe anybody's feelings are really hurt? If I objected to a team name I simply would not attend the games, would not watch them on TV, would not buy their merchandise, and, if I felt it was sufficiently insulting and offensive, might express my opinion about it in a letter to the editor or call the local radio talk show people.

But what is really offensive about the term 'Redskins' when associated with a popular sporting event with fans who are proud of their team and cheer it on and regard it fondly? Yes, a generic Native American caricature is used but it is not one that is insulting but rather endearing and shown in a positive light. Nobody sees Notre Dame's 'fighting Irish' as offensive. The Seminole Indians, to their credit, gave the Florida Seminoles a green light to continue to use their tribal name proudly. That's the attitude that should be promoted I believe.

Nobody can tell somebody else what they OUGHT to feel about anything. But if I was a Native American, I would personally be proud that I was seen as worthy to represent something the American people see as a good, healthy, all-American institution.
Click to expand...

I would bet this all has to do with merchandizing and money. People are getting rich off the name "Redskins" and certain people are objecting because they want to wet their beak a little and aren't getting the opportunity.
 
Ockham said:
Exactly, it offends because the mascot and drawings infer the Irish are overtly violent and subsequently law breakers. As well the logo depicts a balding male, which makes balding men feel violent and insecure about themselves, therefore apt to more violence. Yep. Reject their patent logo and TM of anything to do with that icon, be it graphical or written word.
Click to expand...

But nobody is whispering in a bald mans ear that he is a victim and to go make trouble for somebody else because he has nothing better to do.
 
Gaius46 said:
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.
Click to expand...

You have to think the patnet office knew this but they just didn't care.

The purpose is to make as much trouble for the team as posible and make them spend time and money fighting this instead of running their team.
 
AlbqOwl said:
And do you believe anybody's feelings are really hurt? If I objected to a team name I simply would not attend the games, would not watch them on TV, would not buy their merchandise, and, if I felt it was sufficiently insulting and offensive, might express my opinion about it in a letter to the editor or call the local radio talk show people.

But what is really offensive about the term 'Redskins' when associated with a popular sporting event with fans who are proud of their team and cheer it on and regard it fondly? Yes, a generic Native American caricature is used but it is not one that is insulting but rather endearing and shown in a positive light. Nobody sees Notre Dame's 'fighting Irish' as offensive. The Seminole Indians, to their credit, gave the Florida Seminoles a green light to continue to use their tribal name proudly. That's the attitude that should be promoted I believe.

Nobody can tell somebody else what they OUGHT to feel about anything. But if I was a Native American, I would personally be proud that I was seen as worthy to represent something the American people see as a good, healthy, all-American institution.
Click to expand...
I'm sure some people actually are offended, but for the most part, no, I don't think so.
 
radcen said:
Current trend of adopting meaningless ***** names that won't offend anybody (who can sue).
Click to expand...

Somebody that had a family member killed by a Nissan Titan pickup would be ofended by that name.
 
Did you know that the name Oklahoma is based on Choctaw Indian words which translate as red people (okla meaning "people" and humma meaning "red")?

When the **** are they going to force Oklahoma to change its name?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom