# Redskins Trademark may be canceled. **URL:** \ **Category:** The Game Room\ **Created:** [June 18, 2014, 2:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059 "2014-06-18T14:58:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/21 "2014-06-18T17:35:57Z")
> [@Edward\_The\_Head](#): > > The name has been trademarked for a long time, was this rule in place then? The six trademarks were registered between 1967 and 1990. Section 2(a) has been in force during all that time. I think it has been part of the statute since the Lanham Trademark Act was first enacted in 1946, but I’m not sure about that. > [@](#): > > As for precedent, what if in a few years some group comes along and says they don’t like “Dykes on Bikes”, which seems to have gone through. Or any other name that at some point in time becomes “disparaging” to some group. Well, the Dykes on Bikes already have a ruling in their hands saying that it’s not disparaging – their application was initially rejected as disparaging but I believe they eventually won on appeal. As for other potential examples – The law says that the disparaging nature of the term must have been in existence at the time of registration. That’s what the TTAB says has been proven – that the term was disparaging in 1967. Certainly the purpose of the provision is, at least partly, to encourage people who find such a term disparaging to try to prove it. The policy decision made by Congress was that they didn’t want the law giving legal power to those asserting disparaging marks. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/22 "2014-06-18T17:40:10Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > It incentivizes others to make an effort to screw Snyder. If such incentive were needed, that is. > > Look for all the T-shirt people to crank out volumes of new Washington Redskins stuff, with all sorts of creative additions and variations. Exactly. If upheld, the decision hurts Snyder financially, in that he would not be able to prevent other people from selling Redskins merchandise (presumably at lower cost). Whether the decision helps the people harmed by the team’s name is a different and more difficult question, since it means that there may be a new flood of cheap Redskins merchandise on the market. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/23 "2014-06-18T18:03:42Z")
I’ll note that the last time this happened – The U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia rejected the TTAB’s conclusion about the evidence. But the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia ignored the evidentiary issues and ruled only on the laches issue. This time Snyder has a choice of (1) going to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia (who can hear the whole matter from scratch), which can be appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit or (2) appealing directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (where no one can introduce new evidence or arguments that weren’t raised before the TTAB) Of note is the fact that the evidence in the record this time isn’t significantly different from last time and it might even be slightly smaller in quantity. That doesn’t really make it a good case going into district court. ---
**Author:** ![Wolf333](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolf333/32/3460_2.png) [@Wolf333](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wolf333)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/24 "2014-06-18T18:08:58Z")
> [@Diceman](#): > > My problem with all of this is that actual Native Americans don’t seem to care one way or the other about the “Redskins” name. Someone forgot to tell them that. > **[National Congress of American Indians Releases Anti-Redskins Advertisement](https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/national-congress-of-american-indians-releases-anti-redskins-advertisement/64820/)** > > A two-minute commercial implores the franchise to change its name. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/25 "2014-06-18T18:10:47Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > Exactly. If upheld, the decision hurts Snyder financially, in that he would not be able to prevent other people from selling Redskins merchandise (presumably at lower cost). > > Whether the decision helps the people harmed by the team’s name is a different and more difficult question, since it means that there may be a new flood of cheap Redskins merchandise on the market. What’s more important for the people who want the name changed is that the decision hurts the NFL as a whole. Snyder’s able and willing to take a financial hit to keep the name, but the NFL has a 31-team (everyone but Dallas) revenue sharing agreement that relies on their trademarks. If the decision starts to affect the bottom line of 30 other teams, Snyder’s going to face pressure from the league (which has previously supported him). That’s going to be a lot harder for him to brush off than a split public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/26 "2014-06-18T18:13:14Z")
Even more than that, I suspect the NFL would like Snyder to just change the name now and make this controversy and its bad publicity go away. Snyder might win in court but I think he’s already lost public opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Enginerd](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/bcef8e/32.png) [@Enginerd](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Enginerd)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/27 "2014-06-18T18:15:28Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Snyder might win in court but I think he’s already lost public opinion. Yeah, but that’s because he’s an asshole and not because a majority of the public sees the name as offensive. ---
**Author:** ![Marley23](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@Marley23](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Marley23)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/28 "2014-06-18T18:19:25Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Snyder might win in court but I think he’s already lost public opinion. > [@Enginerd](#): > > Yeah, but that’s because he’s an asshole and not because a majority of the public sees the name as offensive. Half the Senate has spoken out in favor of a name change, which suggests that they feel it’s politically safe to do so. That’s a bad sign for Snyder. ---
**Author:** ![Tom\_Tildrum](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e95f7d/32.png) [@Tom\_Tildrum](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tom_Tildrum)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 6:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/29 "2014-06-18T18:57:47Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Snyder might win in court but I think he’s already lost public opinion. The hell of it is, he might actually _make_ a ton of money by changing the name, as fans rush out to buy a wave of new stuff. His stance just seems increasingly self-defeating. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/30 "2014-06-18T19:08:10Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > Even more than that, I suspect the NFL would like Snyder to just change the name now and make this controversy and its bad publicity go away. > > Snyder might win in court but I think he’s already lost public opinion. What poll or other source are you relying upon? [This one?](http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/dc-sports-bog/wp/2013/05/03/ap-poll-finds-support-for-redskins-name-redskins-com-rejoices/): > [@](#): > > A new Associated Press-GfK poll shows that nationally, “Redskins’ still enjoys wide support. Nearly four in five Americans don’t think the team should change its name, the survey found. Only 11 percent think it should be changed, while 8 percent weren’t sure and 2 percent didn’t answer….Among football fans, 11 percent said the name should be changed — the same as among non-fans. Among nonwhite football fans, 18 percent said it should change, about double the percentage of white football fans who oppose the name.” Or [this one?](http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2014/01/02/poll-finds-support-for-keeping-redskins-name/) > [@](#): > > Leave the Redskins name alone, a majority of voters said in a new Public Policy Polling national survey. > > Some felt more strongly than others about the team’s name, which some consider highly offensive: 90% of Republicans surveyed nationwide said the name should stay, while 59% of Democrats expressed the same view. Overall, just 18% said they believed the Redskins should change their name. Or another one? Do you have a link? ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/31 "2014-06-18T19:13:20Z")
When I say things like “I suspect” and “I think” I am explicitly not relying on a citable source. If you think I’m wrong you could just disagree and offer your cites if that’s something you want to do. I’m not a professional thread-player, so if you want to consider yourself a winner after that, then please do. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/32 "2014-06-18T19:20:34Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > What poll or other source are you relying upon? Not sure what one he was thinking of but seems to me the only poll that should matter should be among the group that is referenced in the term and whether they find it offensive. As one might expect among American Indians there is a difference of opinion on this but by-and-large they [seem to be mostly ok with it.](http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/) Hell, in some cases their own football teams are named the Redskins (see previous link). If they cannot be overly fussed about it I see no reason why other people should be. ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/33 "2014-06-18T19:26:15Z")
> [@Tom\_Tildrum](#): > > The hell of it is, he might actually _make_ a ton of money by changing the name, as fans rush out to buy a wave of new stuff. His stance just seems increasingly self-defeating. This. If Snyder changed the team name to the Washington Renegades (for example) and came up with a new logo, there would be little doubt that the trademark would be legitimate (meaning the team could protect it from cheap knock-offs). People who support the change would likely run out to buy the new gear. People who don’t care, but are fans of the team, would also likely run out and buy the new gear. Some stalwarts would probably keep their old stuff just to make a point, but even they’d capitulate after they got used to the new look (and the team could keep its colors, so it wouldn’t seem like too severe a change). Voila: Profit! ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/34 "2014-06-18T19:48:23Z")
Do individual teams make money on jersey sales? I thought that money was pooled by the NFL. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/35 "2014-06-18T19:57:18Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Not sure what one he was thinking of but seems to me the only poll that should matter should be among the group that is referenced in the term and whether they find it offensive. > > As one might expect among American Indians there is a difference of opinion on this but by-and-large they [seem to be mostly ok with it.](http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/10/08/how-many-native-americans-think-redskins-is-a-slur/). The standard the TTAB uses to determine what “they” think is “whether a substantial composite of the referenced group found REDSKINS to be disparaging in the context of respondent’s services during the time period 1967-1990” and this “substantial composite … need not be a majority.” A portion of their finding that such a substantial composite existed rested on a resolution adopted by the National Congress of American Indians in 1993 that the term had always been disparaging as used by the team, as well as efforts going back to the late 1960s to persuade them to change the name. The evidence of dictionary entries was also cited. The TTAB concluded that > [@](#): > > The record established 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. … Thirty percent is without a doubt a substantial composite. To determine otherwise means it is acceptable to subject to disparagement 1 out of every 3 individuals, or as in this case approximately 625,095 out of 1,878,285 in 1990. There is nothing in the Trademark Act, which expressly prohibits registration of disparaging terms, or in its legislative history, to permit that level of disparagement of a group and, therefore, we find this showing of thirty percent to be more than substantial. … [O]nce a substantial composite has been found, the mere existence of differing opinions cannot change the conclusion. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 7:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/36 "2014-06-18T19:58:08Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Do individual teams make money on jersey sales? I thought that money was pooled by the NFL. They pool sales in some fashion (I do not know the details on how it is divided up) but that doesn’t mean they do not care. Indeed this means there will be pressure from the rest of the NFL to have the name changed since they will all lose some money. Not least because the Redskins are among the most sold NFL merchandise out there. > [@](#): > > The NFL also keeps track of team sales, with the San Francisco 49ers finishing on top for the first time since at least 1979. (The 49ers were No. 2 in 1994 and 1995.) The rest of the top six selling teams all are in the Eastern time zone: The Baltimore Ravens, New York Giants, Washington Redskins, Pittsburgh Steelers, and New England Patriots. > > SOURCE (1 year old so may be different this year): [Robert Griffin III sets NFL record for jersey sales](http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap1000000158570/article/robert-griffin-iii-sets-alltime-jersey-sales-record) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/37 "2014-06-18T20:02:45Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > The standard the TTAB uses to determine what “they” think is “whether a substantial composite of the referenced group found REDSKINS to be disparaging in the context of respondent’s services during the time period 1967-1990” and this “substantial composite … need not be a majority.” Why that time frame? ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/38 "2014-06-18T20:06:00Z")
That’s as far back as the data goes, mainly. Face it, sensitivity to Indian sentiments, or to any minority’s civil rights for that matter, was never a big deal to more than a loonie lefty fringe before the Sixties. No poll data because nobody cared enough to pay for it. ---
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/39 "2014-06-18T20:15:53Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Why that time frame? Because that’s the period during which the six registration at issue happened. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [June 18, 2014, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059/40 "2014-06-18T20:36:18Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > That’s as far back as the data goes, mainly. Face it, sensitivity to Indian sentiments, or to any minority’s civil rights for that matter, was never a big deal to more than a loonie lefty fringe before the Sixties. No poll data because nobody cared enough to pay for it. I’m more wondering why if they are revoking the trademark _today_ that they are relying on sentiments from roughly 50-25 years ago? People’s opinions change. We do not ban bikinis on beaches because someone 100 years ago might be appalled. We apply today’s standards and feelings about it. I do not see why this should be any different. 24 years at the minimum seems more than a little out of date to rely on. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/redskins-trademark-may-be-canceled/691059.md?page=3)