
U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team - salimmadjd
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno=92046185&pty=CAN&eno=199
======
Alupis
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 more... there are a lot of trademarks in
the US that _some_ party _somewhere_ will take offense to.

~~~
rayiner
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 this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after
evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_register_DOB_as_a_trademark)
("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term.
McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual
Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot'
in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right
violations.")

In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term,
a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans.
Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation
proceedings for the trademark:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_controversy#Legal_and_regulatory_action).
The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on
appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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.

~~~
rayiner
Thanks. I vaguely remembered the case from trademarks class, but that was a
few years ago. :)

------
protomyth
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.

~~~
bitJericho
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)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redskin_\(slang\))

~~~
emehrkay
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...](http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-turn-
washingtons-team-name-to-the-r-word)

~~~
JackFr
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...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2005/10/02/AR2005100201139_2.html)

~~~
001sky
I agree with the general tenor of this comment, but the idea that you need a
"citation" is misplaced. The common practise of "scalping" was widespread
(although not uniformly) and this is documented in various places. The
speculation on the origin of what is essentially a slang word is speculative
regarless of what side of the debate you want to argue--thus citation is
irrelevant. Conversely, there was certainly an origin of the term, and lack of
citation doesn't support the term never had an origin (correctly understood or
otherwise).

A variation of "Red-skin" also appears in the French Language (something there
is no data to support Native Americans would have objected to, presumably).
Again, this is neither here nor there in that french speaking canadiens would
have been in contact with all manner of native americans, including those
among which 'scalping' took place (in terms of geographic an time period
overlap etc).

editL

Just a cut-n-paste but might be helpful for some folks to baseline:

 _Redskin...had not emerged first in English or any European language. The
English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the
color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases
were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate
themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called
black, white, and so on.

But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated <was
French>. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived
in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their
extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out
of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or
less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears
mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians._

So the original term in the west was "peau-rouge" and this can be see in
various french-language citations if needed--including news reports. How and
why this was used as slang in English is another question all together, and
how or why it ended up as a mascot (like braves, warriors, spartans etc)
another question again.

------
bruceb
According to Deadspin:

The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate
impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the
trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be
nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins
gear, with logos and all.

One could imagine this having the perverse result of the team becoming more
popular temporarily as now there is a bunch of cheap merchandise. I don't
think it will come to that but it is slightly more likely than it was
yesterday.

~~~
apendleton
They would potentially become more popular, but they wouldn't get the revenue
from that popularity, because the knockoff vendors wouldn't pay for the rights
to the Redskins IP. Since merchandise is a major revenue stream for sports
teams, it seems unlikely, were it to come to that, that the team would
tolerate it for too long; they wouldn't really have any choice but to change
their name to something that could be trademarked to recover their merchandise
revenue.

~~~
bruceb
I do imagine they would change quickly if it came down to it. Though the
market for "traditional" merch would be alive for a while.

------
uptown
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_...](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_map_loss_of_indian_land.html)

~~~
ry0ohki
On the other hand, has any conquering nation ever set aside so much self
managed land for the people it conquered?

~~~
judk
Might does not make right. And modern people did not sign off on those
conquerings.

~~~
ry0ohki
When do we decide what is right? The Sioux conquered Crow and took their
lands, so who holds the right to South Dakota?

------
deancognation
This has been ruled on previously.....and previously overturned.

So much for the trademarks office being a non-political office -
[https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/101523093022...](https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/10152309302229221)

~~~
TheCoelacanth
It was overturned the first time because of laches, i.e. that the plaintiff
had waited too long to bring the case. This time the plaintiff is someone who
only recently turned 18, which negates the laches issue.

------
djim
there are many native americans who support the use of this name. it honors
them. it's perhaps the most "american" team in pro-football, next to their
rivals, the cowboys. the name may genuinely offend some of native american
origins. i doubt these folks happen to be fans of the team. not sure if that
matters, just sayin.

edit: want to add i am totally in favor of renaming the team. it would be cool
to keep the spirit..perhaps the "native americans"?

~~~
talmand
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".

~~~
dragonwriter
> 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 broadly accepted
blanket terms in English for the group is one that includes the name of the
land in the English and a reference to Native Americans historical precedence
in the land.

~~~
talmand
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.

~~~
neonhomer
I think it should be termed Precursor Americans. At least that defines that
they were present before it was title America.

------
dec0dedab0de
I always liked this song, which is relevant.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-uUiCL3QzpU)

------
CtrlAltDel
This is a great victory. Now anyone can legally use the term Redskins, not
just the football team.

------
dmaz
Response: [http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-
Trade...](http://files.redskins.com/pdf/Statement-by-Bob-Raskopf-Trademark-
Attorney-for-the-Washington-Redskins.pdf)

------
peg_leg
They should change their image to one of a peanut. Problem solved.

~~~
talmand
Or potato perhaps.

------
alexeisadeski3
This is a bit ridiculous.

~~~
prutschman
I agree. This should have happened years ago.

