Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

ttabvue.uspto.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 89 posts

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#31

Post by iambateman »

emehrkay wrote: post #11
bitJericho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

I learned over the weekend that "red skin" was used to describe the blood on their skin after they were maimed/killed. edit: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...

Thanks for this, I didn't realize the origin came from bloody skin. If that's the case, it seems like it's time to change the name of the team.

The image really is pretty bad.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#32

Post by ry0ohki »

uptown wrote: post #2

An interesting visualization showing the land seized from Native Americans in the United States. http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_...

On the other hand, has any conquering nation ever set aside so much self managed land for the people it conquered?

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#33

Post by rayiner »

Alupis wrote: post #30
rayiner wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark. A good example of…

Important to note, the ruling is based on whether or not the trademark was considered disparaging at the time of registration... not currently.

Yes, and the relevant time frame is between 1967 and 1990. There's a good article with details: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-patent-office-cancels-reds....

> "The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#34

Post by VLM »

pcl wrote: post #23
protomyth wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Apache group of tribes probably have a much stronger case with an WPO or trademark claim now to get the name and website (apache.org).

Even if the Apache Software Foundation were to lose the trademark on the right to exclusively use that word in the software industry, that does not mean they would necessarily need to give up the domain. And bear in mind that trademark law does not aim to be a unique name registry. The trademark is issued in the context of the business. For example, the USPTO has trademarks registered for Apache helicopters and Apach…

Speaking of apache helicopters, the .mil has the highest concentration of native american names I can think of of, mostly names for weapon systems.

Those looking to "make a statement" can probably find the next lawsuit in that arena.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#35

Post by bunderbunder »

jaxytee wrote: post #29
Alupis wrote: post #13

For anyone not understanding what this is about, here's the most important part of the ruling: > > ...we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that > these registrations must be cancelled because they were > disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times > they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a) > of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a). > Seems like this ruling may lead to m…

I wonder if these name controversies will lead to team Insignia issues. The team's name was based on a derogatory term, but their logo depicted a native american man that was drawn semi realistic. The Cleveland Indians literally use a cartoon caricature a Native American with red skin and a questionable facial expression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cleveland_Indians_logo.svg

I only skimmed the ruling, but it sounds like this was not simply because they used American Indian imagery. It specifically discusses previous rulings along the lines of what you're suggesting, and explains why they chose not to cancel the trademark in that case, and why that precedent is not applicable in this case.

Long story short, this isn't about simply using ethnic imagery. It's about using an out-and-out racial slur.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#36

Post by thenmar »

protomyth wrote: post #20
kaonashi wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I see you've removed all agency from the 'other groups'. Kudos.

Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.

Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#37

Post by sthu11182 »

bitJericho wrote: post #5
protomyth wrote: post #4

I'm not sure how to feel on this one. I doubt my dad (an enrolled member of one of the plains tribes) will be pleased as the Redskins are his favorite NFL team. If I was the Apache Foundation, I would be looking for another name.

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

The decision is not based on the dictionary definition only, but based on the fact 1/3 of Native Americans have consistently (based on the evidence presented) thought the term to be offensive.

Oddly enough, one of the owners of the redskins was a racist. The washington redskins were the last team to integrate and their foundation was specifically forbidden to donate money towards integration causes. However, I think their team name was picked by the original owner, who named them the Boston Braves like the baseball team (now Atlanta Braves) who wanted the team to be like the New York Giants football/baseball (now S.F. Giants), but Boston fans were confused and they changed the name.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#38

Post by JackFr »

emehrkay wrote: post #11
bitJericho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

I learned over the weekend that "red skin" was used to describe the blood on their skin after they were maimed/killed. edit: http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...

There are actually no citations to support this, and prior usages make it seem unlikely that is the derivation.

That isn't to say it's not offensive -- but I don't think promotion of inflammatory false information is constructive.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#39

Post by protomyth »

thenmar wrote: post #36
protomyth wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe, but I've just seen a whole reservation take a vote on a name and be ignored by the NCAA. If you can honestly tell me that this came from the tribes and was voted on by their people, I'll believe it is an actual movement. Otherwise, its just more of the loud offended that don't really give a damn about.

Um, it did come from a Native American group. Not that your opinion on whether or not something is an "actual movement" matters to anyone but yourself...

You didn't actually read the document with the named-non-group plaintiffs.

Re: U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team

#40

Post by dragonwriter »

protomyth wrote: post #7
bitJericho wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apache is not a derogatory name for an American Indian. '"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]' http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_(slang)

Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back. And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.

> Well, Apache is the name of a group of tribes and they might decide they want the website back.

They never had the website, and they can't get it back. And being the name of a group isn't the basis for the legal decision here, so that part is irrelevant, too.

> And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.

The petitioners for cancellation of the trademarks in this case (and the previous one on the same marks) were all Native Americans, enrolled in tribes -- I'm not sure if anyone of them lived on reservations or not, but that's irrelevant to the legal standard anyhow. Further, the evidence presented in the case, and the legal standard, address whether the terms were disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group (Native Americans), not to some group irrelevant to that.

That doesn't mean that all Native Americans have to view the mark as disparaging for it to be cancelled, but it certainly does mean that the decision is not about whether other people, who aren't Native Americans, think the term is disparaging to Native Americans.

Post reply on HN