Started By
Message

re: Trademark board rules against Washington Redskins name

Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:02 pm to
Posted by kevg33
Alexandria
Member since Nov 2004
3247 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:02 pm to
Isn't the first time the patent office did this to Redskins. The first time it was appealed and overturned just like this time will be. Someone put political pressure on them to do it again so they did even though it will most likely fail.
Posted by USMCTiger03
Member since Sep 2007
71176 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:09 pm to
quote:

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).

That's the thing, if the delay was the issue then and the use at the time of trademark is the focus then how can they overcome it simply by adding in new (younger) plaintiffs?
Posted by bhamtbone
North, Alabama
Member since Aug 2013
545 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:13 pm to
What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? As an Irish American, I feel stereotyped and disparaged.
Posted by The Third Leg
Idiot Out Wandering Around
Member since May 2014
10037 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:15 pm to
Posted by Kafka
I am the moral conscience of TD
Member since Jul 2007
141728 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 1:55 pm to
quote:

So fricking stupid. If there was a team named "Crackers" or "White Bread" I would not give a frick








Posted by GeauxxxTigers23
TeamBunt General Manager
Member since Apr 2013
62514 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 1:59 pm to
Damn. They couldn't even give the black crackers matching uniforms.
Posted by davesdawgs
Georgia - Class of '75
Member since Oct 2008
20307 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 2:00 pm to
Another blatant overreach of power by the Obama admin. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Posted by deSandman
Member since Mar 2007
969 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:51 pm to
quote:

That's the thing, if the delay was the issue then and the use at the time of trademark is the focus then how can they overcome it simply by adding in new (younger) plaintiffs?



This time they went with plaintiffs that had recently turned 18 and therefore were minors and unable to bring the claim until now. I read most of the decision, and I found it pretty convincing, but also wouldn't be shocked if it were overturned. The dissent indicated that the District Court in the prior case, facing a similar record, found that the evidence was insufficient (and apparently this finding was not overturned on the appeal that resulted in the case being throw out for other reasons), but I don't care enough to look into the details of the prior litigation.

The question in front of the board, in case anyone is interested, was whether the petitioners could show, by a preponderance of the evidence, that a substantial composite of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS to be disparaging in connection with respondent’s services during the relevant time frame of 1967-1990.
This post was edited on 6/18/14 at 4:53 pm
Posted by Hill Tiger
Member since Aug 2009
897 posts
Posted on 6/18/14 at 5:36 pm to
Guess the Redskins could change their logo to a "Black, one legged, gay woman, breast feeding a puppy while eating an organic bean" it's ok
first pageprev pagePage 3 of 3Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram