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

61–70 of 89 posts

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

#61

Post by talmand »

CamperBob2 wrote: post #42
emehrkay wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Complete and utter bullshit. Look at the etymology of the word "Oklahoma," for instance. It was self-applied: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v014/v014p156.... .

I've seen this brought up a few times for weeks now. If this movement wanting a football team name change doesn't approach Oklahoma about changing their racist name then I'll be really disappointed. They could at least request the University of Oklahoma to make the change.

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

#62

Post by protomyth »

greatergoodguy wrote: post #12
protomyth wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

He didn't tell you what he thinks the word meant. He told you the definition as accepted by many dictionaries. Be careful not to take other peoples word and apply it through your own filter.

I cannot really put into words my reply other than I am rather put out someone would link a wikipedia article in this way. I really don't have the words anymore.

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

#63

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #24
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…

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…

> The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.

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

#64

Post by Shivetya »

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…

Well if we are going to play the PC game with trademarks may I suggest we start heading down the road of renaming all public schools that offend people; actually we are in places; renaming towns with offensive name, removing offensive slogans some towns may have, and so on and so on. Indian style names are quite abundant across this country and I am sure even some we think as inoffensive can be found otherwise if we ask the right people.

In the name of fairness we might just result to numeric designations.

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

#65

Post by 001sky »

rayiner wrote: post #24
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…

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…

NWA will then surely lose (any of) its trademark rights?

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

#66

Post by dragonwriter »

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.

You might want to look at this brief (and, in particular, see who the amici offering it are) in support of the plaintiffs' position in the preceding case raising the same issues (the present case is a rehash of that case, organized by the same group, with younger named plaintiffs to avoid the laches defense that ended up being a problem for the earlier case):

http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo...

Note that the first two listed are:

Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million.

Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.

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

#67

Post by locopati »

ry0ohki wrote: post #32
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?

Consider that the land that was set aside was often poor land that nobody else wanted. And then, to add insult to injury, the land would often be taken again if valuable natural resources were discovered.

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

#68

Post by 001sky »

sthu11182 wrote: post #37
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)

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…

(1) Native Americans are not some homogenous group of people.

(2) 1/3 is an arbitrary number. The threshold for materiality is only 5% generally speaking.

(3) The whole analysis is clearly an ex post facto rationalization of a pre-conceived policy outcome

(4) This is a terribly way to make law

(5) Cloaking it in "data analysis" is a joke...see 1-4.

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

#69

Post by talmand »

dragonwriter wrote: post #60
talmand wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".

> I personally find it strange that the accepted term is "Native American" "Native American" isn't the accepted term so much as one of the more commonly accepted terms. > considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America". Since Native Americans don't share a single pre-colonization language or name for the land, its not really surprising that one of the more…

It seems to be the accepted term amongst the most vocal on the subject.

I understand why the term exists, I just don't understand its usage.

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

#70

Post by sthu11182 »

talmand wrote: post #61
CamperBob2 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Complete and utter bullshit. Look at the etymology of the word "Oklahoma," for instance. It was self-applied: http://digital.library.okstate.edu/Chronicles/v014/v014p156.... .

I've seen this brought up a few times for weeks now. If this movement wanting a football team name change doesn't approach Oklahoma about changing their racist name then I'll be really disappointed. They could at least request the University of Oklahoma to make the change.

I don't think a significant portion of Native Americans find "Oklahoma" to be racist. (based on a guess, not based on any studies)

The point of the ruling was a significant portions of Native Americans found "redskins" to be derogatory at the time the team chose the name all the way to today. I think people arguing today that "redskins" is offensive is based on the fact that a significant portion of Native Americans do think it is offensive today and not based on etymology alone.

Post reply on HN