U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.

locopati• 12 years ago

Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.

judk• 12 years ago

Might does not make right. And modern people did not sign off on those conquerings.

cylinder• 12 years ago

Why has there been no native title movement like there was in Australia?

bruceb2• 12 years ago

According to Deadspin:

The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all.

One could imagine this having the perverse result of the team becoming more popular temporarily as now there is a bunch of cheap merchandise. I don't think it will come to that but it is slightly more likely than it was yesterday.

apendleton2• 12 years ago

They would potentially become more popular, but they wouldn't get the revenue from that popularity, because the knockoff vendors wouldn't pay for the rights to the Redskins IP. Since merchandise is a major revenue stream for sports teams, it seems unlikely, were it to come to that, that the team would tolerate it for too long; they wouldn't really have any choice but to change their name to something that could be trademarked to recover their merchandise revenue.

bruceb2• 12 years ago

I do imagine they would change quickly if it came down to it. Though the market for "traditional" merch would be alive for a while.

NoMoreNicksLeft• 12 years ago

Certainly if it is canceled, they'll be able to sell gear with the logo, but only that.

Other styles and imagery will continue to be trademarked, will it not? For instance, you won't be able to sell a jersey with someone's number on it.

protomyth10• 12 years ago

I'm not sure how to feel on this one. I doubt my dad (an enrolled member of one of the plains tribes) will be pleased as the Redskins are his favorite NFL team.

If I was the Apache Foundation, I would be looking for another name.

bitJericho• 12 years ago

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian.

'"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

protomyth10• 12 years ago

Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back.

And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.

emehrkay• 12 years ago

I learned over the weekend that "red skin" was used to describe the blood on their skin after they were maimed/killed.

edit:

http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...

sthu111823• 12 years ago

The decision is not based on the dictionary definition only, but based on the fact 1/3 of Native Americans have consistently (based on the evidence presented) thought the term to be offensive.

Oddly enough, one of the owners of the redskins was a racist. The washington redskins were the last team to integrate and their foundation was specifically forbidden to donate money towards integration causes. However, I think their team name was picked by the original owner, who named them the Boston Braves like the baseball team (now Atlanta Braves) who wanted the team to be like the New York Giants football/baseball (now S.F. Giants), but Boston fans were confused and they changed the name.

imsofuture• 12 years ago

Not sure 'apache' is quite the same as 'redskins'.

protomyth10• 12 years ago

The Apache group of tribes probably have a much stronger case with an WPO or trademark claim now to get the name and website (apache.org).

Alupis2• 12 years ago

For anyone not understanding what this is about, here's the most important part of the ruling:

...we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that
these registrations must be cancelled because they were
disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times
they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a)
of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).

Seems like this ruling may lead to more... there are a lot of trademarks in the US that some party somewhere will take offense to.

rayiner3• 12 years ago

Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark.

A good example of this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_... ("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term. McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot' in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations.")

In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term, a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans. Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation proceedings for the trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro.... The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

Alupis2• 12 years ago

Important to note, the ruling is based on whether or not the trademark was considered disparaging at the time of registration... not currently.

dragonwriter8• 12 years ago

The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.

001sky5• 12 years ago

NWA will then surely lose (any of) its trademark rights?

jaxytee• 12 years ago

I wonder if these name controversies will lead to team Insignia issues.

The team's name was based on a derogatory term, but their logo depicted a native american man that was drawn semi realistic.

The Cleveland Indians literally use a cartoon caricature a Native American with red skin and a questionable facial expression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cleveland_Indians_logo.svg

bunderbunder• 12 years ago

I only skimmed the ruling, but it sounds like this was not simply because they used American Indian imagery. It specifically discusses previous rulings along the lines of what you're suggesting, and explains why they chose not to cancel the trademark in that case, and why that precedent is not applicable in this case.

Long story short, this isn't about simply using ethnic imagery. It's about using an out-and-out racial slur.

cruise02• 12 years ago

Cleveland has been de-emphasizing that logo recently. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10270450/mlb-cleveland-ind...

As an Indians fan, I won't mind seeing it disappear completely. It's embarrassing.

Shivetya2• 12 years ago

Well if we are going to play the PC game with trademarks may I suggest we start heading down the road of renaming all public schools that offend people; actually we are in places; renaming towns with offensive name, removing offensive slogans some towns may have, and so on and so on. Indian style names are quite abundant across this country and I am sure even some we think as inoffensive can be found otherwise if we ask the right people.

In the name of fairness we might just result to numeric designations.

alexeisadeski3• 12 years ago

This is a bit ridiculous.

prutschman• 12 years ago

I agree. This should have happened years ago.

djim• 12 years ago

there are many native americans who support the use of this name. it honors them. it's perhaps the most "american" team in pro-football, next to their rivals, the cowboys. the name may genuinely offend some of native american origins. i doubt these folks happen to be fans of the team. not sure if that matters, just sayin.

edit: want to add i am totally in favor of renaming the team. it would be cool to keep the spirit..perhaps the "native americans"?

talmand6• 12 years ago

I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".

dragonwriter8• 12 years ago

I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American"

"Native American" isn't the accepted term so much as one of the more commonly accepted terms.

considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".

Since Native Americans don't share a single pre-colonization language or name for the land, its not really surprising that one of the more broadly accepted blanket terms in English for the group is one that includes the name of the land in the English and a reference to Native Americans historical precedence in the land.

peg_leg• 12 years ago

They should change their image to one of a peanut. Problem solved.

talmand6• 12 years ago

Or potato perhaps.

dmaz• 12 years ago

Response: http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trade...

dec0dedab0de• 12 years ago

I always liked this song, which is relevant.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU

CtrlAltDel• 12 years ago

This is a great victory. Now anyone can legally use the term Redskins, not just the football team.

deancognation• 12 years ago

This has been ruled on previously.....and previously overturned.

So much for the trademarks office being a non-political office - https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/101523093022...

TheCoelacanth• 12 years ago

It was overturned the first time because of laches, i.e. that the plaintiff had waited too long to bring the case. This time the plaintiff is someone who only recently turned 18, which negates the laches issue.

U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

Related Stories