Tweet
Trademark trial and appeal board strikes down six trademark registrations owned by the Washington redskins.
-
τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσιν -
Dan Snyder will fight this to the bitter end and look as bad as Donald Sterling when all is said and done. Couldn't happen to a nicer guy.Originally posted by All-American View Post -
I assume they can further fight this in court.
I'm guessing the Redskins have a good chance in winning based on first amendment rights.
Anyone know?Comment
-
So long, Redskins
Yes, they keep the rights pending appeal. Doubtful they win on first amendment grounds.Originally posted by beefytee View Post
EDIT: turns out that the first amendment issue has been raised before. This latest round of litigation repeats an earlier claim from the 2000's, which ended on appeal with a ruling in the redskins' favor on technical grounds. The redskins raised the constitutional issues then, but they were never addressed. They are certainly likely to bring them up again.
I'm not sure what the outcome will be on that issue. Most likely, the courts will again go out of their way to find grounds in which to decide the case without going there.Last edited by All-American; 06-18-2014, 08:24 AM.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσινComment
-
I am no trademark expert but granting a trademark and protecting first amendment speech rights are two different things. You can't get a trademark to protect names that are disparaging.Originally posted by beefytee View PostComment
-
Yay! Utes are next and I think the moderators on this site should force username changes for monikers that co-opt Native American imagery and names (Seattle "Ute" and "Drum and Feather" come to mind).Comment
-
SeattleSwoop.Comment
-
That's what the Latham act says, yes, but the fact that a government office gives or refuses to give a trademark based on its content raises some pretty important first amendment concerns.Originally posted by imanihonjin View Post
I spent a few minutes looking for case law on this question and there isn't much out there. I may have to withdraw my earlier doubts. I think the argument could have legs, if they can get to it.τὸν ἥλιον ἀνατέλλοντα πλείονες ἢ δυόμενον προσκυνοῦσινComment
-
Never!Originally posted by YOhio View Post"They're good. They've always been good" - David Shaw.
Well, because he thought it was good sport. Because some men aren't looking for anything logical, like money. They can't be bought, bullied, reasoned, or negotiated with. Some men just want to watch the world burn.Comment
-
-
Oklahoma is Choctaw for red people.Originally posted by splitbamboo View Post"Nobody listens to Turtle."-TurtlesigpicComment
-
He's a double violator then. What a tone-deaf insensitive prick.Originally posted by splitbamboo View PostComment
-
But the Utes give the Utes permission to use Utes. That is more noble than LDS women who don't want the priesthood!Originally posted by YOhio View PostDo Your Damnedest In An Ostentatious Manner All The Time!
-General George S. Patton
I'm choosing to mostly ignore your fatuity here and instead overwhelm you with so much data that you'll maybe, just maybe, realize that you have reams to read on this subject before you can contribute meaningfully to any conversation on this topic.
-DOCTOR WuapComment
-
Using a native American name as a nickname for your team is insensitive at best and racist at worst. I don't care if your team/school gives financial support or aid for use of the name. There is no justification for it.
FTR, I think Runnin' Utes is almost as offensive as Redskins."Discipleship is not a spectator sport. We cannot expect to experience the blessing of faith by standing inactive on the sidelines any more than we can experience the benefits of health by sitting on a sofa watching sporting events on television and giving advice to the athletes. And yet for some, “spectator discipleship” is a preferred if not primary way of worshipping." -Pres. UchtdorfComment
-
I certainly am not well versed in legal circles, but I think just trying to defend that it isn't disparaging will be really hard as a large amount of people believe it is.
I think they have to say that the policy/law (whatever it is) should only apply to trademarks that are specifically taken out with intent to harm or hurt people/groups which obviously in this case, isn't the case. If not applied in this way, we are getting into free speech territory where the trademark office can go after anyone that it is politically expedient to since the term "disparaging" could be applied pretty liberally.
It seems like the courts are pretty open to the idea of corporate free speech arguments lately.
http://www.newrepublic.com/article/1...ade-regulation
(thanks to IJ Reilly for the link)
I'm sure my ignorance has shown through in this post, but I won't learn without asking or questioning.Comment
Comment