I disagree, but can’t say you are wrong. The ownership of the Cleveland team has been working to this point for some time. It will be interesting to see if Atlanta rebrands with their move to a new stadium.
Of course the team should do what it can to retain the rights to the logo. They know if they don’t it will be all over the place and not in a good way. Sell it on limited merchandise and let it phase out over time.
Here’s an interesting and somewhat relevant article about minimum use in order to maintain a trademark.
[large chunk of prior post edited due to newfound understanding of the difference between a trademark and a service mark]
It does indeed sound like the trademark owner can’t just make “token” use of the trademark merely to hold on to it. There has to be some legitimate attempt to use it, such as sales involving the trademark. I had hoped there would be some easy way around it.
What about selling historical baseball cards, books, magazines and videos with old images on them? If they let the trademark lapse, will that mean they no longer have control over licensing those images?
I have to say, I’ve heard a lot of white people complain about how the logo is offensive to Native Americans, but I’ve heard very little of Native Americans themselves making the same complaint. And the most vigorous complaint I’ve heard came from a white guy who, at the time, was wearing a Notre Dame Fighting Irish shirt and Boston Celtics-branded shorts. And yes, it’s a caricature, but then, so is every team mascot and every cartoon character.
All that said, if they do phase out the logo, or even change the name, it doesn’t hurt me any.
My two kids are Native American (as is their mother). They think the logo is offensive. They’re not on the street protesting about it (they recognize there are other, more important, issues in the world), but they don’t like it.
OK, you’ve made your point. So why, when there’s a news story about uproar against the name or logo, do they always interview the white activists who are offended on someone else’s behalf, instead of one of the Native American ones?
Clearly “they” don’t “always” interview white activists instead of Native American ones. You have several examples right here just above your post.
If you’re wondering why some or even many articles about offensive team names quote white activists rather than Native activists, I would suspect that it has to do mainly with who (Generally white) journalists are most likely to know and are most comfortable talking to. It doesn’t seem like evidence that Native Americans don’t care.
Americans have an extremely long history of not giving two shits about what Native Americans think on any subject. Or any minorities, for that matter. Shamefully, it sometimes takes angry white people to get something done.
Fine by me that Chief Wahoo is being relegated to that great tepee in the sky.
It would have been enjoyable seeing all concerned parties aggravated by the announcement that the Chief would be replaced by a new, dignified Native American logo (perhaps one honoring Louis Sockalexis, the old-time player for the Cleveland franchise who (probably inaccurately) is seen as the inspiration for the Indians name).
Right, let someone else be the asshole in this situation.
That’s a good question, I have no idea.
Rumor is Rob Manfred told the Indians they can either host the 2019 All Star game or keep Chief Wahoo. So if the Indians aren’t completely willingly doing this, they might not care exactly how divorced they are from the logo.