The 1st Amendment.
The team is privately owned, therefore the owner can name it anything he wants, and the gov't can say nothing about it.
Redskins name controvesy
- Thread starter TNGTony
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 304
- Views 36K
The team is privately owned, therefore the owner can name it anything he wants, and the gov't can say nothing about it.
I'm sorry, but I'm finding it a little hard to get behind the Washington Draft Dodgers. 
Seriously, the team is worth $1.7 B according to Forbes. If anyone is offended by the name they can buy the team and rename them.
Seriously, the team is worth $1.7 B according to Forbes. If anyone is offended by the name they can buy the team and rename them.
Again there isa difference between free speech and license. I think that is perfectly acceptable to hold either position on whether this name crosses a line. however i think it is gross distortion of the first amendment to say that it covers anyone saying anything without limitation or that it really covers how a sports team can be named.
Perhaps you should consult a lawyer
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using SatelliteGuys mobile app
As long as he doesn't violate anyone's copyright, the owner of a private team is free to name it whatever he wants. The First Amendment protects unpopular names.
Navajo Code Talker says Redskins name not derogatory
A leader of the Navajo Code Talkers who appeared at a Washington Redskins home football game said Wednesday the team name is a symbol of loyalty and courage — not a slur as asserted by critics who want it changed.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...talker-says-redskins-name-not-derogatory?lite
A leader of the Navajo Code Talkers who appeared at a Washington Redskins home football game said Wednesday the team name is a symbol of loyalty and courage — not a slur as asserted by critics who want it changed.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/201...talker-says-redskins-name-not-derogatory?lite
Here is a commercial making the rounds. They could not afford to pay for time during the super bowl:
Last edited by a moderator:
Redskins Trademark Canceled, Called Derogatory
In coming to the decision, the USPTO reviewed the testimony of Native Americans, newspaper articles, reports, official records and letters. The agency noted that the Washington Redskins alleged honorable intent and manner of use of the term wouldn't contribute to its determination of whether "Redskins" is disparaging. Here's the full ruling.
This isn't the first time the USPTO has addressed the "Redskins" issue. In the 1990s, a challenge was made to the football team's nickname, and in 1999, Native American groups found luck in convincing the board of its disparagement. But the decision was later overturned by a federal court on the grounds that opposers had waited too long to object to the 1967 trademark. An appeals court then reversed that decision—holding that the wrong standard for laches was applied—but didn't address the merits of whether "Redskins" was disparaging or not.
Afterwards, a newer set of Native Americans came forward and today, have prevailed.
Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder has been adamant that there won't be any team name change, despite growing pressure from advocacy groups, media pundits and even President Barack Obama. Snyder will likely pursue an appeal of the USPTO's decision and seek a stay of enforcement.
The ramification of the decision, if it holds up, means that the team will have a tougher time stopping others from using the name and logo. However, the team could fall back on other common law rights, and in its opinion, the USPTO acknowledges that it lacks statutory authority on the subject of use of trademarks. Barring a team name change, the team's controversial use of "Redskins" will be a subject of legal dispute for many years to come.
hollywoodreporter.com
In coming to the decision, the USPTO reviewed the testimony of Native Americans, newspaper articles, reports, official records and letters. The agency noted that the Washington Redskins alleged honorable intent and manner of use of the term wouldn't contribute to its determination of whether "Redskins" is disparaging. Here's the full ruling.
This isn't the first time the USPTO has addressed the "Redskins" issue. In the 1990s, a challenge was made to the football team's nickname, and in 1999, Native American groups found luck in convincing the board of its disparagement. But the decision was later overturned by a federal court on the grounds that opposers had waited too long to object to the 1967 trademark. An appeals court then reversed that decision—holding that the wrong standard for laches was applied—but didn't address the merits of whether "Redskins" was disparaging or not.
Afterwards, a newer set of Native Americans came forward and today, have prevailed.
Washington Redskins owner Dan Snyder has been adamant that there won't be any team name change, despite growing pressure from advocacy groups, media pundits and even President Barack Obama. Snyder will likely pursue an appeal of the USPTO's decision and seek a stay of enforcement.
The ramification of the decision, if it holds up, means that the team will have a tougher time stopping others from using the name and logo. However, the team could fall back on other common law rights, and in its opinion, the USPTO acknowledges that it lacks statutory authority on the subject of use of trademarks. Barring a team name change, the team's controversial use of "Redskins" will be a subject of legal dispute for many years to come.
hollywoodreporter.com
Let's see if this stands up. We have been here before and the courts reversed it. This does not stop Snyder or the team from using the name but if the trademark is invalidated the NFL stands to lose $. Not sure where this goes but it does mean that this controversy does not die any time soon.
A literary classic. Also an accurate mirror of the way things and the way people spoke and acted were at that time. But Mr. Twain's works contain a number of words that might not be great names for a team.
So Harry Reid gets the Patent and Trademark office to do his dirty work for him. I can't say that I'm shocked.
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
Posted Via The FREE SatelliteGuys Reader App!
The first amendment would protect the team from having the Government force a change of name. It does not offer any protection from private individuals or groups who seek to get the name changed.
Ironically today you could say that the Government has at least interfered in the mater. I actually think the trademark will be restored but I would be hard pressed to argue that revoking or failing to grant a trademark actually limits your free speech.
It will get restored by the appeals court, the same as last time the patent/trademark office invalidated the trademark for the same reason in 1999 (Pro-Football inc v. Harjo).
If they change the name, fine, so be it but I have to wonder why this wasn't a bigger deal in the 80s or 90s? You can't tell me that NOBODY knew that the name was offensive. And even if people complained, why was nothing done?
I will say that if the name changes, does that mean any reference to the Redskins by name on any old broadcasts will be edited out? Will there jerseys be blurred out?
I will say that if the name changes, does that mean any reference to the Redskins by name on any old broadcasts will be edited out? Will there jerseys be blurred out?
Washington Redskins statement on trademark registration ruling
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...63bad8-f701-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...63bad8-f701-11e3-a606-946fd632f9f1_story.html
So, there was no problem with them using the name when they originally started, but there is now ... what happened ?
More people bitched is what happened ... I'm so sick of having to be Politically correct or you may offend someone.
They talked to possibly 15% of those involved that said No, what do the other 85% have to say if the name is changed over the 15% that disapprove ?
More people bitched is what happened ... I'm so sick of having to be Politically correct or you may offend someone.
They talked to possibly 15% of those involved that said No, what do the other 85% have to say if the name is changed over the 15% that disapprove ?
