- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Trademark board rules against Washington Redskins name
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:03 am to LSUChamp06
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:03 am to LSUChamp06
quote:
So fricking stupid. If there was a team named "Crackers" or "White Bread" I would not give a frick.
Look, I think this whole Redskins name issue is as stupid as the next guy, but this is always the worst argument for a white person to make.
0
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:04 am to weagle99
quote:
Wasn't this already taken to court 20+ years ago and the Redskins won?
They lost then too (1999?), the Court overturned the ruling on a technicality a few years later.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 11:05 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:06 am to HornsLife
I'd be fine with Washington Football Club then still use logo. The logo isn't the issue. It seems use of redskins
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:11 am to LSUChamp06
quote:
So fricking stupid. If there was a team named "Crackers" or "White Bread" I would not give a frick.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:17 am to Spaceman Spiff
I think the Buccaneers is offensive to every pirate in the world. Time to remove it. Hell Tampa already caved and got rid of Devil from their baseball team.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 11:23 am
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:20 am to LSUDAN1
How long before Atheists consider the "Saints" offensive?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:22 am to LSUTygerFan
quote:
How long before Atheists consider the "Saints" offensive?
Up until they started winning, I thought it was very degrading to all "Saints". Winning cures all. If Redskins were winning every year this would be a moot point.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:23 am to HornsLife
Time to start considering a return to the Articles of Confederation.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:25 am to AnonymousTiger
Washington Warriors...problem solved.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:28 am to H.M. Murdock
quote:
Well, the 1st amendment of the constitution gives the company the protection to use whatever name they see fit. The patent office, as an extension of the fed gov cannot limit the 1a. This will go to court.
No, it doesn't. The first Amendment gives the company the right to use whatever name it sees fit.
The US Trademark Office gives a company an exclusive right to use a name and gives a company the ability to enforce that right in court. And now it has decided that that giving the team the exclusive right to the word "Redskins" was a mistake.
This ruling doesn't say that the team can't refer to itself as the Redskins. It just means that they can't sue someone for making a shirt with the word "Redskins" on it because no one can own a trademark that is disparaging to people.
Here's the ruling:
LINK
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:38 am to deSandman
quote:
It just means that they can't sue someone for making a shirt with the word "Redskins" on it because no one can own a trademark that is disparaging to people.
Here's the ruling:
LINK
That certainly doesn't sound like a reckless over-reach of government power. So based on this ruling every "offended" party in the world can invalidate their enemy's trademarks.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:42 am to 4WHLN
quote:
POTUS does not know what this so there for can do what he pleases.
WHOA! dude taught conlaw at a top ten law school and doesn't know what the constitution is?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:46 am to jtmiller02
quote:
So based on this ruling every "offended" party in the world can invalidate their enemy's trademarks.
No, it has to be disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group at the time the trademark was issued. It's a pretty tough standard to meet, but when "Slang (often disparaging and offensive)" appeared in the Random House dictionary next to the word, as is the case here, it's not impossible.
The same decision was reached in 1999, but the decision got thrown out on a technicality (the court determined the plaintiffs had waited to long to bring the motion).
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:48 am to HornsLife
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:50 am to jtmiller02
quote:
That certainly doesn't sound like a reckless over-reach of government power. So based on this ruling every "offended" party in the world can invalidate their enemy's trademarks.
Uhm. . . No.
The mark has to be disparaging. So naming a team Chiefs or Braves likely wouldn't get you in trouble. Thats like naming a team Generals or Warriors. Why would that offend anyone?
But to name a team red skins? C'mon man! You have to see the difference. No one is going to invalidate the trade mark "Coca Cola", but "Coca Cola Whites Only" probably won't fly.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:52 am to H.M. Murdock
quote:
Well, the 1st amendment of the constitution gives the company the protection to use whatever name they see fit. The patent office, as an extension of the fed gov cannot limit the 1a. This will go to court.
Lol I love all the OT constitutional scholars. The 1st A doesn't prevent the government from not awarding a trademark. The federal government isn't telling the team they can't have that name, they simply are not going to be trademark protected.
And I think the name should stay the same
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:56 am to DamnStrong1860
Understanding how to use something to your advantage and knowing its purpose are two distinctly different things...
Case in point, one can be a the best parachute rigger on earth and never learn the purpose of each tacking, fold and stow...just knowing the steps and techniques is well enough
Case in point, one can be a the best parachute rigger on earth and never learn the purpose of each tacking, fold and stow...just knowing the steps and techniques is well enough
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:57 am to HornsLife
When did the patent office turn political?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 11:58 am to IceTiger
Wut?
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:01 pm to LSUChamp06
quote:
The plan to insult whites in the same way the minority students perceived Native Americans being insulted backfired on the group when the team's popularity skyrocketed. In response to customer demand, the team eventually began selling shirts under both names.
The Fighting Whities...
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News