Washington Redskins name trademark registration canceled - Polidicks

[quote]The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”[/quote] Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html[/url] Looks like the heat is mounting for the Redskins. Though I don't think this'll do anything to get them to change. Probably just means they can't sue over someone else using it. Unless I'm wrong? I don't really know the ins and outs of trademark law.

Here's to the new Washington Wetbacks! Seriously though I bet they'll go along the Washington Nationals route, like the Minutemen or the Washington Super Patriots, because fuck New England.

[QUOTE=outlawpickle;45145188]Here's to the new Washington Wetbacks! Seriously though I bet they'll go along the Washington Nationals route, like the Minutemen or the Washington Super Patriots, because fuck New England.[/QUOTE] Washington Walla Wallas?

This ruling makes sense. You can't trademark racial slurs.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145239]This ruling makes sense. You can't trademark racial slurs.[/QUOTE] How is it racist

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145239]This ruling makes sense. You can't trademark racial slurs.[/QUOTE] but it wasnt a racial slur in the context it was used in

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145239]This ruling makes sense. You can't trademark racial slurs.[/QUOTE] Is that so? Hmm... Gah, you microsofts are all the same.

[quote]a public opinion poll published in 2004 in which 90 percent of those who identified as American Indians answered that they were "not bothered" by the name "Redskins" being used for the Washington football team.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Public_opinion_polls[/url]

[QUOTE=Dalndox;45145168]Source: [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/us-patent-office-cancels-redskins-trademark-registration-says-name-is-disparaging/2014/06/18/e7737bb8-f6ee-11e3-8aa9-dad2ec039789_story.html[/url] Looks like the heat is mounting for the Redskins. Though I don't think this'll do anything to get them to change. Probably just means they can't sue over someone else using it. Unless I'm wrong? I don't really know the ins and outs of trademark law.[/QUOTE] They probably get a fuck ton of money from licensed goods like hats and jackets. It may very well have an effect.

Worse comes to worst they can just rename themselves the Washington Indians and leave it at that, unless the decision gets overturned by any court.

Yeah, considering that (according to the article) it's going to cause serious issues with marketing and merchandising, I honestly would not be surprised if the team changed their name just to preserve their cash flow.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45145213]Washington Walla Wallas?[/QUOTE] no please don't make it any more confusing for people

[QUOTE=bopie;45145313] [quote]a public opinion poll published in 2004 in which 90 percent of those who identified as American Indians answered that they were "not bothered" by the name "Redskins" being used for the Washington football team.[/quote] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Public_opinion_polls[/url][/QUOTE] Pff, what do actual natives know? Don't worry, white people are on the job to defend this poor culture.

I guess the 10% who are offended don't count because who gives a shit about the minority right. also that article you linked basically says the poll was a load of shit anyway good job not quoting that. [quote] At a symposium at the Washington College of Law at American University, the topic was discussed, noting following problems with the National Annenberg Election Survey: Being ten years old, the survey is of little value given the evolution of public opinion on other social issues over the same period. Context matters - The questions regarding the football team were only part of a longer election-year survey. The self-identification problem - Comparing the US Census data for self-identified Native Americans with the numbers of enrolled tribal citizens, 40% of those who claim to be Native American have no support for that claim. Use of landlines - Only 53% of Native Americans had a land-line in 2005, so almost half of the target population was excluded from the sampling process. The question was poorly worded and confusing - The phrasing [I]As a Native American, do you find that name offensive or doesn’t it bother you?[/I] has multiple issues. It is a two part question with no single answer. There is a difference between finding something offensive and not being bothered. Sample size - Only 768 Native Americans were polled, which is only 0.04% of the population, meeting the minimal requirement to be statistically significant, but too few to justify using it as a definitive measure of Native American opinion given the issues cited above.[/quote]

[QUOTE=bopie;45145313][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Public_opinion_polls[/url][/QUOTE] I thought the article said it changed in recent years and thats why its being brought up again.

[QUOTE=Zonesylvania;45145343]Worse comes to worst they can just rename themselves the Washington Indians and leave it at that, unless the decision gets overturned by any court.[/QUOTE] "Indians" is an incorrect, supposedly offensive, term as well. Personally, I go with Amerindian.

[QUOTE=avincent;45145266]How is it racist[/QUOTE] Okay let's do a thought experiment 1600: A bunch of North Africans colonize Europe 1776-1934 (taking a very generous date here): Europeans are systematically enslaved and driven to near extinction, stay second-rank citizens until the late 20th century 2014: A soccer club full of North Africans calls themselves "The London Whiteskins" and their logo is a caricature of a white person, wearing a French hat because all white cultures are the same, right? Now tell me that'd be 100% okay with you.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145970]Okay let's do a thought experiment 1600: A bunch of North Africans colonize Europe 1776-1934 (taking a very generous date here): Europeans are systematically enslaved and driven to near extinction, stay second-rank citizens until the late 20th century 2014: A soccer club full of North Africans calls themselves "The London Whiteskins" and their logo is a caricature of a white person, wearing a French hat because all white cultures are the same, right? Now tell me that'd be 100% okay with you.[/QUOTE] Yeah it would be, cause you know, the intent isn't meant to be offensive.

Reminds me about how for a long time a famous restaurant in Philly was named "Chink's Steaks" and it finally renamed itself and wound up losing a lot of business.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145970]Okay let's do a thought experiment 1600: A bunch of North Africans colonize Europe 1776-1934 (taking a very generous date here): Europeans are systematically enslaved and driven to near extinction, stay second-rank citizens until the late 20th century 2014: A soccer club full of North Africans calls themselves "The London Whiteskins" and their logo is a caricature of a white person, wearing a French hat because all white cultures are the same, right? Now tell me that'd be 100% okay with you.[/QUOTE] I don't see how any white person could ever possibly be offended by that.

I wonder if they'll end up doing this with Red Man chewing tobacco.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;45145645]"Indians" is an incorrect, supposedly offensive, term as well. Personally, I go with Amerindian.[/QUOTE] Why did "Aboriginal" never catch on in the United States?

Maybe they should ask the "Ching-Chong Ding-Dong Foundation for Sensitivity to Orientals or Whatever" for legal advice.

[QUOTE=avincent;45145266]How is it racist[/QUOTE] Redskin is the equivalent of the term oriental or negro or jap. It's not exactly a racist term, but it's a very dated term that certain parties could find offensive.

Choosing to call your name something is complimentary. No one wants to be named after something that they don't like.

[QUOTE=deltasquid;45145970]Okay let's do a thought experiment 1600: A bunch of North Africans colonize Europe 1776-1934 (taking a very generous date here): Europeans are systematically enslaved and driven to near extinction, stay second-rank citizens until the late 20th century 2014: A soccer club full of North Africans calls themselves "The London Whiteskins" and their logo is a caricature of a white person, wearing a French hat because all white cultures are the same, right? Now tell me that'd be 100% okay with you.[/QUOTE] You do know that 'Redskin' isn't referring to their skin color right?.. [editline]18th June 2014[/editline] [QUOTE=Fapplejack;45148706]Redskin is the equivalent of the term oriental or negro or jap. It's not exactly a racist term, but it's a very dated term that [B]certain parties[/B] could find offensive.[/QUOTE] [QUOTE]a public opinion poll published in 2004 in which 90 percent of those who identified as American Indians answered that they were "not bothered" by the name "Redskins" being used for the Washington football team.[/QUOTE] It's okay SJW you don't need to be offended for them on this one.

[QUOTE=Fapplejack;45148706]Redskin is the equivalent of the term oriental or negro or jap. It's not exactly a racist term, but it's a very dated term that certain parties could find offensive.[/QUOTE] certain parties want compensation to find it not offensive, thats all its about.

I feel like Chief Wahoo is probably more offensive than the name Redskins, if anything

naming your multi-million dollar sports franchise after a race of people is gross bullshit no-matter how you try to justify it as "complimentary." even if it's not openly derogatory it's like an okcupid profile where the guy spends two paragraphs talking about how much he loves asian women. it's still demeaning and distressing even if it's meant to be flattering [QUOTE=avincent;45149093] It's okay SJW you don't need to be offended for them on this one.[/QUOTE] so can we, on july 18th, 2014, finally declare calling your opponent an SJW the new godwin? it's such a bankrupt, zero-effort retort

[QUOTE=SigmaLambda;45149905]even if it's meant to be flattering[/QUOTE] You can't even give them that. It's a holdover from a time when overt racism was acceptable that people refuse to change for fear of losing money.