N/S PTO rules that "Redskins" is derogatory (not a case about the NFL team but likely precedent) (1 Viewer)

[superchuck500]

The product seeking trademark was "Redskins Hog Rinds" . . . apparently a pork skins snack company. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) refused to grant the trademark, stating that, "Registration is refused because the applied-for mark REDSKINS HOG RINDS consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols."

What does this mean for the Washington Redskins? Well, this ruling only applies to the particular application by the snack company. However, last March the PTO heard a challenge to the NFL Redskins' trademark on the same basis. The ruling has not been released but it's hard to imagine how the PTO would find the word disparaging regarding a snack food but not regarding a football team. Though I'm not sure if the standard is different for existing trademarks as compared to applications for new ones.

What would a similar ruling regarding the team mean? It wouldn't, in and of itself, mean the Redskins have to change their name or that the name has been ruled unusable. It would, however, mean that the team could not enforce any trademark in the marketplace. This means that anyone could start selling Redskins clothing or paraphernalia and not face legal action from the team or league.

I do, however, believe that league rules require the individual franchises to protect their relevant trademarks and enforce them, so if the Redskins were to lose their trademark, it could put the league in a position of having to either grant the Redskins relief from that requirement (which would certainly be a bad PR move) or to require the team to change its name.

Keep in mind that PTO rulings (either the one about the pork rinds or the future Redskins ruling expected this year) are appealable to federal court.


Trademark office says no to 'Redskins Hog Rinds' - WTOP.com

 

[crosswatt]

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/IdcBENN4NSU" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[superchuck500]

Yep, I think this could be one of the first real dominoes to fall.

 

[crosswatt]

Yep, I think this could be one of the first real dominoes to fall.

I could see the NFL arguing that it is such a term of pride and respect, that the offense was in trying to place it on snack food. With a straight face.

 

[InThatNumber]

I find it interesting that you can't trademark a product with the term "Redskin" on it, but you can copyright a song that has much more offensive terms about ethnic and racial groups.

 

[superchuck500]

I find it interesting that you can't trademark a product with the term "Redskin" on it, but you can copyright a song that has much more offensive terms about ethnic and racial groups.

Yeah, they're entirely different standards. Trademarks protect your business in the marketplace and so you can see why it would be undesirable to have such names. But copyright applies automatically to covered works, including works of art - where the principles attached are completely different.

 

[RajCaj80]

I find it interesting that you can't trademark a product with the term "Redskin" on it, but you can copyright a song that has much more offensive terms about ethnic and racial groups.

To be honest, I think that has much to do with the politics involved with the entertainment industry. (Ever wonder why the PC & Feminism machine went scoarched earth on Limbaugh over calling Sandra Fluke the "S-word", but Lil Wayne can literally compare a womans reproductive parts to a piece of meat.....yet no one says a word)

 

[Icon]

yawn.......can this crap just fizzle out already?

 

[RajCaj80]

I could see the NFL arguing that it is such a term of pride and respect, that the offense was in trying to place it on snack food. With a straight face.

Actually, the team name was changed to honor American Indians, specifically the then head coach William Dietz (who claimed Soux heritage), and American Indians on the team. The former owner Jack Cooke kept the name, because he felt it stood for qualities associated with the American Indian culture (bravery, courage & a stallwart spirit). What probably prompted the change from the Boston Braves was to clear up any confusion with the Braves baseball team...at which point they chose "Redskins" for those reasons stated above.

Language is arbitrary, and can mean what ever you want it to. If there is no ill will meant with the name (and I've never seen any disparaging remarks, symbolism or sentimant toward Native Americans) then leave it alone.

What's next? We change the name of the state of Oklahoma? (It's Choctaw for red people)

 

[guidomerkinsrules]

Language is arbitrary, and can mean what ever you want it to. If there is no ill will meant with the name (and I've never seen any disparaging remarks, symbolism or sentimant toward Native Americans) then leave it alone.

What's next? We change the name of the state of Oklahoma? (It's Choctaw for red people)

can't tell if you actually believe this or are just wanting to vent

 

[saintsfan4210]

Lol society is so soft nowadays. Good god

 

[chank]

Lol society is so soft nowadays. Good god

Well said

 

[RajCaj80]

can't tell if you actually believe this or are just wanting to vent

I've re-read my post and I think you are talking specifically about the "never seen disparaging remarks about American Indians". What I meant to say was that I've never seen anything negative about American Indians come out of the Washington Redskins organization. So if the football club attributes positive qualities of the people the name represents, how is it exactly an insult? Who gets to determine the meaning of a word (or collection of words) used? The person sending the message, or the person recieving it?

As for language being arbitrary, I beleive that. Whats the difference between saying darn & damn, if you mean the same thing? Doesn't make any one more right than the other.

Point being, allowing others to redefine something you've already defined is a slippery sloap. Someone will always be offended, no matter what it is.

What about the FSU Siminoles spear on the side of their helment? Couldn't that attribute a violent culture to the current Siminole tribe?

What about the Saints, and their flur du lis (which is a religious symbol for the holy trinity). Couldn't the separation of church n' state crowd take offense that tax dollars are going to an organization that calls itself a religious figure, with a religious symbol as their brand?

If all that sounds rediculous....it is. FSU doesn't mean any ill will toward the Siminole tribe over it's mascot or helment decal. The New Orleans Saints are not a religious organization.....but you can be sure there are people out there that will interpret those things (and be offended) how they want to.

 

[lades]

They should just change the name to the "Red Skins" and make the mascot Mr Sunburn and everything will be fine.

 

[InThatNumber]

Yeah, they're entirely different standards. Trademarks protect your business in the marketplace and so you can see why it would be undesirable to have such names. But copyright applies automatically to covered works, including works of art - where the principles attached are completely different.

I see what you're saying and I'm vaguely familiar with the principles from the few IP law classes I went to before I dropped the course eight years ago, but it still seems like a distinction without a difference. Protecting a business in the market place is pretty analogous to me to protecting a work of art or song in the public landscape (I want to say public domain, but that's the exact opposite of what I'm trying to say). And copyright applies automatically, but only by convention. Isn't it arbitrary that patents don't exist automatically by convention?

My point, for what it's worth, was just that both are instances of the government granting protection to a creation of some kind and saying, "You can go out and peddle this in the marketplace without fear of it being stolen and used to compete with you," but in one case the government takes it upon itself to decide what's offensive and in the other it does not.