Patent office cancels Redskins trademark

[Muse]

Are you really going to attempt (and fail) to speak for all Native Americans on this issue?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/tim-giago/native-american-mascots_b_1907486.html



So, while you may not know anyone personally who is offended by this, big surprise there, it doesn't mean there aren't any.

Look, racism is a problem. Objectifying skin color as a primary personal characteristic (which is what the team name "Redskins" does) when it _should_ be considered a secondary characteristic is patently offensive when it's done in such a blatant manner as naming a major sport team. Hey, this is the country that more than any other has stood for, should stand for taking a stance against racism or any other form of inequality. In that regard I think Washington's pro football team being called the Redskins should be considered egregious. Add to that the irony of it happening in the capitol city of the nation. Am I grossly offended no, am I somewhat offended, absolutely. Is it time they change the name? I think so.

 

[lupi]

I'm looking to having some with a side of butter and chives tonight.

 

[bradley]

I'm looking to having some with a side of butter and chives tonight.

Why not a beloved patriot onion instead of those chives. A good suggestion might be to change the Redskins team logo to a beloved patriot potato or onion.

Or how about this Onion?

Redskins’ beloved patriot Owner Refuses To Change Team’s Offensive Name
http://www.theonion.com/articles/re...t-owner-refuses-to-change-teams-offens,34292/

Perhaps they can change their names to the Washington Parody Redskins. Yet some would still remain steadfast on that yellow line and niggardly refuse to call a spade a spade. lol?

Of course, playing cards, potatoes and the entire state of Oklahoma (and many other inanimate objects) are also racist in the world of parody.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Now the patent office is also a measure of offensiveness? Since when.

Since the passage of the Lanham Act in 1947.

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.

- 15 USC 1052 (signed into law by President Truman in 1947)

All that said, canceling the registration of a trademark does virtually nothing to limit the ability of the trademark's owner to defend the trademark. All registration does is grant statutory damages and grant the registrant a presumption that his or her use of the trademark was first. Even if the decision to revoke the registration stands on appeal, it remains illegal to manufacture unlicensed merchandise with the team's name or logo and the team can still sue you into oblivion for doing so.

For a more thorough analysis, look here: http://www.ejusdemgeneris.com/sorry-but-its-still-illegal-to-sell-unlicensed-redskins-merchandise/

ZV

 

[Elixer]

TLDR;
Did someone mention they should just tack on peanuts to the end of their name ?

'Washington beloved patriot peanuts" TADA!

 

[Pantoot]

Since the passage of the Lanham Act in 1947.

- 15 USC 1052 (signed into law by President Truman in 1947)

No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—

(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute; or a geographical indication which, when used on or in connection with wines or spirits, identifies a place other than the origin of the goods and is first used on or in connection with wines or spirits by the applicant on or after one year after the date on which the WTO Agreement (as defined in section 3501 (9) of title 19) enters into force with respect to the United States.[/URL]

Interesting. I wonder if Tesla is at risk of losing it's trademark?

 

[Zenmervolt]

Interesting. I wonder if Tesla is at risk of losing it's trademark?

That only affects trademark registration. You don't need to register a trademark to have protections. All registration does is give you access to statutory damages (basically if someone violates your trademark you automatically get a certain amount of money as damages and don't have to prove that there were financial damages) and a presumption that your use of the term came first.

As for Tesla, I think that there's sufficient common knowledge that the company is not connected with Nikola Tesla but rather named in honor of him that it's not a problem (this is similar to the way that Lincoln can still have its trademark registered despite being named in honor of Abraham Lincoln, but not identical since Lincoln's trademark predates the Lanham act).

ZV

 

[Brainonska511]

Since the passage of the Lanham Act in 1947.

- 15 USC 1052 (signed into law by President Truman in 1947)

All that said, canceling the registration of a trademark does virtually nothing to limit the ability of the trademark's owner to defend the trademark. All registration does is grant statutory damages and grant the registrant a presumption that his or her use of the trademark was first. Even if the decision to revoke the registration stands on appeal, it remains illegal to manufacture unlicensed merchandise with the team's name or logo and the team can still sue you into oblivion for doing so.

For a more thorough analysis, look here: http://www.ejusdemgeneris.com/sorry-but-its-still-illegal-to-sell-unlicensed-redskins-merchandise/

ZV

But you forget, they will lose the automatic seizures that US Customs will perform for counterfeit merchandise.

Should the ruling stand — and Snyder plans to appeal it — his team would lose the legal protections it enjoys by having the nickname listed as a federally registered trademark. Those protections include the legal presumption that the team owns the trademark, its right to use the trademark symbol, and its ability to rely on the US Customs and Border Patrol Service to help fight foreign infringement and counterfeit practices.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ng-nickname/mrs2s9pXZLww7t90U5LnJO/story.html

 

[Pantoot]

As for Tesla, I think that there's sufficient common knowledge that the company is not connected with Nikola Tesla but rather named in honor of him that it's not a problem...
ZV

I agree with your assessment, but thought this was interesting.
From an article (comic?) at theoatmeal http://theoatmeal.com/comics/tesla_model_s2

Maybe it isn't a common knowledge as we think.

 

[Zenmervolt]

But you forget, they will lose the automatic seizures that US Customs will perform for counterfeit merchandise.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/sports/2...ng-nickname/mrs2s9pXZLww7t90U5LnJO/story.html

I'm not sold on that being a huge benefit in this case.

Yes, losing registration makes things slightly more difficult for the team, but it's not enough, from a practical standpoint, for the decision to have much more than symbolic effect.

ZV

 

[bradley]

That's just common sense to say the six registrations ONLY will be canceled after an exhaustive appeals process and all of the appeals are lost.

Except then the Redskins wouldn't be protected under one broad trademark umbrella and would resort to individual legal action to enforce their common law rights against anyone selling merchandise. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between gay marriages and common law (or civil) unions either. So to say it's no biggie is false as well.

Currently the team will incur huge legal fees associated with such appeals based on this USPTO decision. It also limits the revenue that the club/NFL can legally earn selling jerseys and merchandise with that name/logo.

However this trademark reversal does absolutely nothing to stop the NFL team from using/selling/maintaining the logo. This is a huge waste of taxpayers time, money and valuable resources to appease a very politically correct movement. This lip-service does nothing to improve the lives of Native American Indians.



I actually found the comments section in that CNN article, posted by the OP, extremely illuminating - rare for any Internet comments board. Thought I would post one or two for anyone to verify or corroborate.

The term was COINED BY NATIVE AMERICANS. It is not and has never been a racial slur. They have been calling themselves "red people" with pride for generations. The team was NAMED the Redskins in 1931 specifically to HONOR Lone Star Dietz, an American Sioux who was coach of the team at the time. The current logo was designed in 1971 with input from various Native American tribal leaders who considered the finished product to be "perfect." Joe Theismann was presented with a chief's headdress by Native Americans after he lead the team to a Super Bowl victory.

How will we tell the athletes at Wellpinit (Wash.) High School -- where the student body is 91.2 percent Native American -- that the "Redskins" name they wear proudly across their chests is insulting them. Because they have no idea.

"I've talked to our students, our parents and our community about this and nobody finds any offense at all in it," says Tim Ames, the superintendent of Wellpinit schools. "'Redskins' is not an insult to our kids. 'Wagon burners' is an insult. 'Prairie n-----s' is an insult. Those are very upsetting to our kids. But 'Redskins' is an honorable name we wear with pride. … In fact, I'd like to see somebody come up here and try to change it."

And it's not going to be easy telling the Kingston (Okla.) High School (57.7 percent Native American) Redskins that the name they've worn on their uniforms for 104 years has been a joke on them this whole time. Because they wear it with honor.

Seems like we're being told very incongruous stories.

 

[shortylickens]

I'm looking to having some with a side of butter and chives tonight.

I like them mashed into goo with loads of butter and some broccoli on the side.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Except then the Redskins wouldn't be protected under one broad trademark umbrella and would resort to individual legal action to enforce their common law rights against anyone selling merchandise. Otherwise, there would be no distinction between gay marriages and common law (or civil) unions either. So to say it's no biggie is false as well.

And from what law school did you graduate that you can state this so authoritatively?

You're acting as though the team doesn't already have to file individual suits against people who infringe on the trademark. Whether they file a suit for statutory damages or whether they file a suit under common law, they still have to file a suit. It's not as though registration magically grants the team trademark damages without a lawsuit. The practical effect of losing the registration is minor. I say that based on my experience as a licensed attorney.

Currently the team will incur huge legal fees associated with such appeals based on this USPTO decision. It also limits the revenue that the club/NFL can legally earn selling jerseys and merchandise with that name/logo.

How, exactly, does it "limit the revenue" that the team can earn? I'd absolutely love to hear your theory on this. It'll probably be quite amusing.

However this trademark reversal does absolutely nothing to stop the NFL team from using/selling/maintaining the logo.

Make up your mind. This contradicts what you've state above.

ZV

 

[bradley]

And from what law school did you graduate that you can state this so authoritatively?

ZV

Authoritatively? Any patent lawyer should know the difference between "common law" trademark enforceable in state courts vs. ones given by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark enforceable in Federal Courts. Are you telling me you don't see the distinction?

THE USTPO will offer way more protection, Federal protection vs the more limited resources a state could provide. Unless you know of a state that can legally print money?

 

[bradley]

BTW, Perhaps just read better articles, like ones found at Forbes, Wall St. Journal and the Washington Post vs. MSN.com, CNN etc ?

From yesterday's Washington Post....

The 99-page decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board said the team’s name and logo are disparaging. It dilutes the Redskins’ legal protection against infringement and hinders the team’s ability to block counterfeit merchandise from entering the country.

But its effect is largely symbolic. The ruling cannot stop the team from selling T-shirts, beer glasses and license-plate holders with the moniker or keep the team from trying to defend itself against others who try to profit from the logo. And the trademark registrations will remain effective during any appeal process.

"Largely symbolic, dilutes, hinders." Sounds like a great scenario for any business person in the pursuit of directly making money without the added expense of defending itself against unwarranted attacks. I'm sure the Atlanta Braves and Chicago Blackhawks are actively pursuing this legal gravy train.

Trademark lawyers say the decision largely is inconsequential to the team, even if it loses an appeal. The team would maintain “common law” rights to the name, allowing it to make a case against any individual or organization looking to profit from it. “I think it’s a stronger moral victory for the Native American community than a financial detriment to the Redskins,” said Joe Lewis, a District-based trademark lawyer.

Of course a patent attorney would say such a thing. Only patent lawyers stand to benefit from this "inconsequential" (to them) decision.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Authoritatively? Any patent lawyer should know the difference between "common law" trademark enforceable in state courts vs. ones given by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office trademark enforceable in Federal Courts. Are you telling me you don't see the distinction?

I notice you are silent about your legal credentials. Shocking.

File in state court, file in federal court, doesn't make a meaningful difference in terms of expense. Hell, there's probably going to be diversity jurisdiction that would allow them to file in federal court even for claims under state law in most cases. Federal registration of a trademark does not grant any additional protections. It merely allows the granting of statutory damages (meaning the team doesn't have to show damages to get a damage award) and creates a rebuttable presumption that the registration holder was using the mark first.

I see the distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference, as any trademark attorney would know. Patent attorneys deal with patents, not trademarks.

THE USTPO will offer way more protection, Federal protection vs the more limited resources a state could provide. Unless you know of a state that can legally print money?

What the hell does the ability to print money have to do with the legal protections offered to a trademark holder? That's a non-sequitur worthy of a mental patient.

What's clear here is that you fail to understand how US trademark law works.

ZV

 

[bradley]

I notice you are silent about your legal credentials. Shocking.

File in state court, file in federal court, doesn't make a meaningful difference in terms of expense. Federal registration of a trademark does not grant any additional protections. It merely allows the granting of statutory damages (meaning the team doesn't have to show damages to get a damage award) and creates a rebuttable presumption that the registration holder was using the mark first.

I see the distinction, but it's a distinction without a difference, as any trademark attorney would know. Patent attorneys deal with patents, not trademarks.



What the hell does the ability to print money have to do with the legal protections offered to a trademark holder? That's a non-sequitur worthy of a mental patient.

What's clear here is that you fail to understand how US trademark law works.

ZV

Shocking. Just glance over everything and go straight for the pedantic personal character card. Trademark/patent attorney it's all interchangeable to me. I'm a nameless faceless anonymous person quickly typing on the Internet, until said otherwise. Just as your words also speak for themselves. I'll just as soon wait for someone who can provide some actual relevancy or reality. TY

 

[Zenmervolt]

Just glance over everything and go straight for the pedantic character card. I'm a nameless faceless anonymous person quickly typing on the Internet, until said otherwise. Just as your words also speak for themselves. I'll just as soon wait for someone who can provide some actual relevancy or reality. TY

I've outlined relevant US trademark law. You've stuck your head in the sand and made utterly irrelevant comments about the power to coin money (which has exactly nothing whatsoever to do with trademark protections).

I've offered the perspective of a licensed attorney. You've offered no rebuttal to the facts I've presented (and, in fact, quoted an article where another licensed attorney concurs with my judgment).

The bottom line here is that there is minimal practical effect to the cancellation of a trademark's registration. Whether registered or not, a trademark holder still has to sue each infringing party. Whether registered or not, a trademark holder is still entitled to prohibit others from using the mark in trade or commerce. Whether registered or not, the trademark holder is still owed damages for every infringing use.

The reason that trademark attorneys are saying this is no big deal is because it is, in fact, no big deal. If you want to believe that this is some conspiracy by trademark attorneys (whom you inexplicably insist on conflating with patent attorneys despite substantial differences between the fields) to secretly make more money, that's fine. It's insane, but it's fine.

ZV

 

[BladeVenom]

 

[bradley]

http://www.mediapeta.com/peta/igc/redskins.jpg

Exactly. And an even better way to sidestep the issue is present a microscopic disclaimer at the bottom that says "beloved patriot" actually stands for the potato, onion or peanut.

 

[Zenmervolt]

Exactly. And an even better way to sidestep the issue is present a microscopic disclaimer at the bottom that says "beloved patriot" actually stands for the potato, onion or peanut.

That sort of parody image isn't a violation of trademark regardless of registration even without a disclaimer. And it falls within the fair use of parody with regard to copyright law. It's not "sidestepping" anything. It's allowable use under any setup.

ZV

 

[bradley]

That sort of parody image isn't a violation of trademark regardless of registration even without a disclaimer. And it falls within the fair use of parody with regard to copyright law. It's not "sidestepping" anything. It's allowable use under any setup.

ZV

You kinda missed my point. Zoom. But that's ok.

 

[CZroe]

Like when the Chargers ditched their charging steed and started using a lightning bolt instead?

*shrug*

I guess we have precedent.

 

[schmuckley]

Native Americans?

I haven't seen anything that correlates to that.

Maybe some Communist Honkies.
..and Obama.

What's next?
Seminoles?
Braves?
I know..The Cleveland Indians?
Bullshit is Bullshit..and I call Bullshit.

 

[Craig234]

I'm glad to see the law standing for what it should - no surprise it's one from decades ago rather than the modern obstructionist period - and to see it enforced.

I may not have the correct understanding of this, but if I do, this is going to be dominated by money, because this might allow third parties to sell competing merchandise. I'm not sure what the owners' legal rights are against such competitors when they lose the trademark on appeal. And that would make them want a replacement.

And with that, all the statements by the owner about how the name will 'NEVER' change saying you can put that in caps are likely to be completely reversed.

Our nation has a nasty history of discrimination, and it's good to correct what we can.