Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Bradleyb123,
Someone must think it is offensive. In particular, the Indians who filed the cancellation proceedings. Also, the dictionaries and encyclopedias that the plaintiff’s cite specifically say that the name is offensive. I doubt that the Indians named in the proceedings are “self-righteous liberals.”
I personally didn’t originally find “Redskin” to be offensive – but I am white and don’t interact with Native Americans very often. I don’t think I am (or you are -unless you are an Indian) in the right to define what is or is not offensive to a whole swath of people – especially when representatives of those people say something is offensive to them. The U.S. Constitution’s preamble reads “We the People” not “We the majority.” Good governments are judged on how they protect the rights of the minorities’ voices to be heard.
This is the Federal Government operating exactly as it was intended to operate based on laws passed way back in 1946. The current presidential administration has nothing (at the very least-nothing directly) to do with it. The cause of action was allowed to go forward based on the USPTO’s judgment. Three TTAB judges at the USPTO (based on the authority given by Federal Government many years ago) heard the evidence presented by both sides. Two judges agreed with the plaintiffs and one judge agreed with the defendant based on the statutes and regulations enacted by the Federal Government and the evidence presented.
The only people making this political are the talking heads on the 24 hour news cycle. Sounds like you took their bait.
At first, I thought the TTAB ruling was petty and a little absurd. But after reading portions of the plaintiff’s brief, I agree with Pakfanistan and nav. The mark REDSKINS should not be afforded federal trademark protection.
The term “Redskins” is clearly, and clearly has been for a long time, a pejorative term. Even dictionaries and encyclopedias defined the term “Redskins” as “offensive” going as far back as 1911. Groups and organizations of Indians and their leaders have objected to the use of the team name for a long time even going so far as having a national Indian organization that represented several Indian nations meet with the Redskin’s owners to aski them to stop using the name when the trademark registrations were fairly new and some of the trademark applications were either still pending or not filed yet.
As pakfanistan and nav have astutely pointed out, the standard is not – and should not be – what people in a bystander class of people think of the term, it is what the affected group of people think the term means to them. To a large portion of the Native American population in America, “Redskin” is akin to what the N-word means to black people when used by people outside the African-American race. To discount what the term “REDSKIN” means to Native Americans because you do not find it offensive, is not too much different from the general population accepting politicians using the N-word in speeches in the 1940’s and 1950’s. It may not have been offensive to the majority of whites who heard it, but I bet it was offensive to a large portion of the blacks.
Pakfanistan,
All laws that govern society exist only because governments exist.
I understand your point of view about the intellectual property rights existing for the greater good. My view differs, in that I think, generally speaking, that they do serve the greater good and promote the sciences and the useful arts, especially as they relates to patents. I have to admit though – the “Mickey Mouse” effect on copyright longeivty has me a little worried…
Pakfanistan,
Sorry – I guess you do not understand that Congress is given the right under Articel 1, Section 8, clause 2, of the U.S. Constitution “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes.” You may not realize that federal trademark registrations are only granted by the Federal Government on marks solely used to identify the source of goods and/or services that are being sold in interstate commerce in the U.S.
Since Congress has the right to regulate commerce – the rights granted under a federal trademark registration “derive” directly from powers granted to the federal government by the U.S. Constitution.
Texpack wrote –
Federal judges have upheld the rights of the American Nazi Party to march and express views several orders of magnitude more offensive than having Redskins as a mascot. Politically unpopular speech is exactly the kind of speech the Founding Fathers intended to protect with the First Amendment. There are multiple public high schools in the heart of Indian Country in Oklahoma who have “Savages” as their nickname. Government funded institutions so if they’re really serious about this they will cut off funding to these institutions before they go after the Redskins.
My Libertarian streak is getting wider as time goes on.For the record I despise both the Cowboys and the Redskins.
Texpack –
You are confusing First Amendment rights with the right to have a federal trademark registration. As others have pointed out, these are vastly different rights. This ruling has absolutely nothing to do with “politically unpopular speech” and has no “chilling effect” on the same.
The U.S. government has a right to regulate commerce in the several States. Rights in trademark whether common law, state or federal are rights tied to the identification of a source of goods or services. Rights granted under a federal trademark registration are rights granted solely at the discretion of the Federal Government under the governments rights to regulate commerce. One of the regulations as set by Congress is that in order for a party to obtain a federal trademark registration, the mark, at the time of registration, cannot consists of or comprises 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. Congress has appointed the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to regulate federal trademark registrations and to make such determinations. The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board after reading and hearing all the arguments from both sides ruled that “REDSKINS” was a slur and was disparraging to people of Native American descent. Therefore, the TTAB canceled Pro Football, Inc.’s federal registrations, revoking the rights granted by the Federal Government for the special protections afforded them by those registrations.
Pro Football, Inc. can still call the team they own whatever they like – including the “REDSKINS.” They just will not be able to stop others from using the mark REDSKINS under the special rights that Pro Football, Inc. had under those federal registrations if the TTAB ruling stands. Also, Pro Football, Inc. still may have some common law rights in the mark even if the ruling is upheld.
Similarly, the American Nazi Party can keep their name, march and espouse their views. I don’t think, however, they would be able to get a federal trademark registration on a nazi swastika or a yellow star with “JUDE” written across it as source identifier for any goods or services that they provide.
Strictly speaking on free speech and trademarks, while I think SAVAGES and REDSKINS may be on different levels of disparagement, those Oklahoma high school football teams can still continue to call themselves the “SAVAGES” but they may not be able to obtain a federal trademark registration on the name (for several reasons). They could have other issues related to state and local government sponsorship if an issue is ever raised, though.
As for being a Libertarian – you can start a movement to strike the commerce clause from the U.S. Constitution and allow “true” free reign for goods and services provided by business – but I don’t think you will like the outcome.
Pakfanistan –
Trademark, Copyright, and Patent rights derive directly from the U.S. Constitution – Article 1, Section 8. Trademark rights derive from the Commerce Clause and Copyright and Patent rights derive from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8.
Thus, Trademark, Copyright, and Patent rights are no more “completely made up” than any other right that is recognized by the U.S. Constitution. These rights are as valid and real as any in the U.S. and derive from our true founding document.
