- 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 12:02 pm to DamnStrong1860
Posted on 6/18/14 at 12:02 pm to DamnStrong1860
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 on 6/18/14 at 12:09 pm to deSandman
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 on 6/18/14 at 12:13 pm to HornsLife
What about the Notre Dame Fighting Irish? As an Irish American, I feel stereotyped and disparaged.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 1:55 pm 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 1:59 pm to Kafka
Damn. They couldn't even give the black crackers matching uniforms.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 2:00 pm to HornsLife
Another blatant overreach of power by the Obama admin. Move along. Nothing to see here.
Posted on 6/18/14 at 4:51 pm to USMCTiger03
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 on 6/18/14 at 5:36 pm to HornsLife
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
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News