Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

Current Events & Hot Topics Current Events & Hot Topics

Washington Redskins trademark canceled by U.S. Patent Office

Posted by on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM
  • 94 Replies

Washington Redskins trademark canceled by U.S. Patent Office


The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, an extremely rare move the office said it made because the name is offensive to Native Americans.

Trademarks that disparage or belittle other groups are not permited under federal law. The ruling Wednesday pertains to six different trademarks containing the word “Redskin.”

Native American groups have been fighting the football team, its owners and sponsors for decades to change the name.

The decision can be reviewed by a federal court. The ruling does not mean that the trademarks can no longer be used by the NFL club, only that they are no longer registered, the statement said.

This is the second time the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board has faced a petition to cancel these registrations. The first was in 1992.

Many other sports teams, professional on down to grade schools, have names derived from Native American roots. But few have received more scrutiny or backlash than the Redskins.


http://www.chicagotribune.com/business/breaking/chi-washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled-20140618,0,1927895.story


by on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:40 AM
Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Replies (1-10):
VooDooB
by weird cheese on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:43 AM
1 mom liked this

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....

rockinmomto2
by on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:46 AM
4 moms liked this

They also cancelled the patents on 6 other teams. The reality is that it's by far the most racist team name ever. Maybe they can finally come up with something they'd be proud of. And the patent office is its own entity. They can approve or deny or cancel whatever patents they want.

Quoting VooDooB:

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....


lhiannan
by Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM

 Since the name is a racial slur, it apparently does not meet guidelines for registration...

Quoting VooDooB:

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....

 

wedding tickers








 

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:48 AM
1 mom liked this

I wonder when Notre Dame will be forced to cancel. 

munky.wench
by Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 11:49 AM
They are a bit behind the times. Back in the early 90's my small town Kentucky elementary schools mascot was the Black Devils, the picture was obviously a little big lipped black kid with horns. Makes me wonder if some people think that should have been ok for them to keep too.
greenie63
by Silver Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 12:11 PM

7 Things That Convinced The U.S. Patent Office To Cancel The Redskins Trademark

BY JUDD LEGUM  

"7 Things That Convinced The U.S. Patent Office To Cancel The Redskins Trademark"

 

Share:

   google plus icon Share on email

The landmark decision by the U.S. Patent Office, first reported by ThinkProgress, canceled the trademark “Redskins” for Washington’s NFL franchise. Ultimately, the decision hinged on whether the term Redskins “disparages Native American persons.” The law prohibits trademarks on disparaging terms. So the Native Americans challenging the trademark needed to convince the office: 1. The term was still referring to Native Americans, and 2. It was disparaging toward Native Americans. Here are seven things that convinced the patent office.

1. This picture of cheerleaders

Screen Shot 2014-06-18 at 10.19.42 AM

CREDIT: USPTO

From the decision: “The Redskinettes also had appeared wearing costumes suggestive of Native Americans, as shown in the 1962 photograph of them reproduced below, which contained the title ‘Dancing Indians’ and the caption ‘Here are the Redskinettes all decked out in their Indian garb and carrying Burgundy and Gold pom-poms.’”

2. This picture of the marching band

Screen Shot 2014-06-18 at 10.19.34 AM

CREDIT: USPTO

From the decision: “The Washington Redskins marching band had worn Native American headdresses as part of its uniforms between the 1960s and the 1990s, as shown in the image below from the 1980s.”

3. This press guide

Screen Shot 2014-06-18 at 10.19.54 AM

CREDIT: USPTO

From the decision: “Between 1967 and 1979, the annual Washington Redskin press guides, shown below, displayed American Indian imagery on the cover page.”

4. Its similarity to other racial slurs

The decision cited an excerpt from the 1990 book “Unkind Words: Ethnic Labeling from Redskin to WASP”:

Nearly half of all interracial slurs …refer to real or imagined physical differences. … Most references to physical differences are to skin color, which affirms what we have always known about the significance of color in human relations. Asian groups were called yellow this and that and Native Americans were called redskins, red men, and red devils.

5. The dictionary definition of Redskins

We further note the earliest restrictive usage label in dictionary definitions in Mr. Barnhart’s report dates back to 1966 from the Random House Unabridged First Edition indicating REDSKIN is “Often Offensive.” From 1986 on, all of the entries presented by Mr. Barnhart include restrictive usage labels ranging from
“not the preferred term” to “often disparaging and offensive.”

6. The opposition by the National Congress of American Indians

The decision cites a 1992 resolution from the organization:

[T]he term REDSKINS is not and has never been one of honor or respect, but instead, it has always been and continues to be a pejorative, derogatory, denigrating, offensive, scandalous, contemptuous, disreputable,
disparaging and racist designation for Native American’s

7. Letters of protest from Native Americans

The Patent Office also considered letters protesting the name from individual Native Americans. One sample:

Since you continue not to believe that the term “Redskins” is not [sic] offensive to anyone, let me make this clear: The name “Redskins” is very offensive to me and shows little human interest or taste…If you think you are preserving our culture or your history, then may I suggest a change? To live up to your name, your team would field only two men to the opponents eleven. Your player’s wives would be required to face the men of the opposing team. After having lost every game in good faith, you would be required to remain in RFK stadium’s end zone for the rest of your life living off what the other teams had left you. (Which wouldn’t be much.) Since you would probably find this as distasteful as 300,000 Indians do, I would suggest a change in name. In sticking to your ethnic theme, I would suggest the Washington Niggers as a start. … This would start a fantastic trend in the league. We would soon be blessed with the San Fransisco [sic] Chinks, New York Jews, Dallas Wetbacks, Houston Greasers, and the Green Bay Crackers. Great, huh? Mr. Williams, these would be very offensive to many people, just as Redskins is offensive to myself and others. You can take a stand that would show you and the team as true believers in civil rights, or you can continue to carry a name that keeps alive a threatening stereotype to Indian people. People, Mr. Williams. We don’t want the Redskins!

FromAtoZ
by AllieCat on Jun. 18, 2014 at 12:17 PM

There will be dancing in the streets over this.  While others scramble to buy merchandise and still others will be livid while many just don't care.

sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 12:19 PM
2 moms liked this

 Trademarks that disparage or belittle other groups are not permited under federal law

Quoting VooDooB:

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....

 

EireLass
by Ruby Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 12:22 PM
1 mom liked this

.....once they're complained about. 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 Trademarks that disparage or belittle other groups are not permited under federal law

Quoting VooDooB:

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....

 

 

sweet-a-kins
by Emerald Member on Jun. 18, 2014 at 12:24 PM
1 mom liked this

 This is the 2nd time it's been cancelled.

But you know what they say $$$ talks

Quoting EireLass:

.....once they're complained about. 

Quoting sweet-a-kins:

 Trademarks that disparage or belittle other groups are not permited under federal law

Quoting VooDooB:

Is this even legal? Who gives the say-so for the patent office to cancel the trademark? IJR is blaming the Obama Admin. I don't know about that? Either way, doesn't seem right....

 

 

 

Add your quick reply below:
You must be a member to reply to this post.
Join the Meeting Place for Moms!
Talk to other moms, share advice, and have fun!

(minimum 6 characters)

close Join now to connect to
other members!
Connect with Facebook or Sign Up Using Email

Already Joined? LOG IN