According to page 8-9 of the decision, the italicized characterization of the law is not correct. The decision says that matter turns on a substantial composite of the referenced group, the referenced group being Native Americans. I add bolding give the reader a break: [INDENT] In deciding the second question, whether the term “redskins” may disparage Native Americans, we look not to the American public as a whole, but to the views of the referenced group (i.e., Native Americans). Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 68 USPQ2d at 1247; Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d at 1739. 15 The views of the referenced group are “reasonably determined by the views of a substantial composite thereof.” Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo, 68 USPQ2d at 1247 (quoting Harjo v. Pro-Football, Inc., 50 USPQ2d at 1739). A “substantial composite” of the referenced group is not necessarily a majority of the referenced group. In re Heeb Media LLC, 89 USPQ2d 1071, 1074 (TTAB 2008); In re Squaw Valley Dev. Co., 80 USPQ2d 1264, 1279 n.12; cf. Ritchie v. Simpson, 179 F.3d 1091, 50 USPQ2d 1023, 1024 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (“Whether a mark comprises immoral and scandalous matter is to be ascertained in the context of contemporary attitudes, and the relevant viewpoint is not necessarily that ofa majority of the general public, but of a ‘substantial composite.’”) (quoting In re Mavety Media Group Ltd., 33 F.3d 1367, 31 USPQ2d 1923, 1925-26 (Fed. Cir. 1994)). What comprises a “substantial composite” of the referenced group is a fact to be determined at trial. In making this determination, “we are charged with taking into account the views of the entire referenced group who may encounter [respondent’s services] in any ordinary course of trade for the identified goods and services.” Heeb Media, 89 USPQ2d at 1075.16 Finally, any cancellation of a registration should be granted only with “due caution” and “after a most careful study of all the facts.” Rockwood Chocolate Co. v. Hoffman Candy Co., 372 F.2d 552, 152 USPQ 599, 601 (CCPA 1967) (internal citations omitted).
15See id. at 8-11 (TTABVue 40, pp. 8-11). In our earlier order outlining the applicable law, the statement that the perceptions of the general public are irrelevant refers to the ultimate legal determination. It does not foreclose evidence of general perception. If, for example, numerous dictionary definitions unanimously included a usage characterization indicating a term is offensive, contemptuous, etc. that could be evidence of the general perception of a term and could serve to support a finding that the referenced group finds the term to be disparaging.
[/INDENT]
That last sentence is pretty important, I think. I’m not a lawyer, nor did I stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night, but it seems to me that they’re saying that it doesn’t matter weather 9 or 90 percent of native american find the term offensive, as long is the general usage of the term as decided by experts is considered disparaging.
No, I don’t think that’s what it’s saying. It’s saying that designation by experts might be evidence that a substantial component of the relevant population (i.e., at least 20 percent of Native Americans) find it disparaging.
It’s because teams rarely want to be associated with the term “sloth”. They do want to be associated with Redskins (or Vikings) because the teams feel it conjures a positive (or winning) image.
…or an aggressive image.
I was a proud member of Indian Guides. I say this without apology: after all, I was seven years old at the time. The pastiche of different Native American traditions, along with a few aspects of 19th century vaudeville (“How, how”) wasn’t presented as parody or ridicule. It was however cartoonish, something that I could grok to a couple of years later when I read an elementary school history book on various North American tribes. I thought Indians were pretty cool when I was seven, though I had never met one. So I can’t quite say that the disrespect was intentional. The group presented an historically vacuous and rather inappropriate caricature, all without the use of a single racial slur.
At least they meant well: the idea was to create a bonding opportunity for small boys and fathers.
There are no longer Vikings so how are they winners exactly? At least Native Americans are still around.
Still, none of this matters. Just as a sloth is still an animal even if no team owners choose to name their team the Sloths, Redskins is a pejorative term regardless of what a few people who are not Native Americans think.
That’s the bulk of the evidence that you have yet to address.
Well, I agree with what he said then. Regardless, my point - though not elegantly stated - is that opinion polls are not evidence in their minds, or at least it’s not the main evidence that they are looking at. The main evidence in their minds are the experts who overwhelmingly make a convincing case that the term is most often used as disparaging to Native Americans.
But every sports team nickname inherently refers to something else, with which it is creating a connection of some kind with the team—unless it’s something that literally means only “football team,” there must be a referent of some kind.
Those making the judgment did. They used the term overwhelming; do you think they use that term because one piece of the evidence that was presented was that compelling? I don’t think so. More likely the term overwhelming was used in reference to how much of it was provided.
In any event, I asked you in my previous post when you made the claim that you can have hundreds of page of nonsense, to take on one piece of evidence that was presented and show us how it is a lie on par with new earth creationism which was, I believe, your analogy.
My analogy was limited to the “number of pages” example. I said I could offer lots of pages about New Earth Creationism to show only that “lots of pages,” is not particularly important…not to suggest that the evidence he was as weak as that for New Earth Creationism.
Your analogy is irrelevant. You may as well said that they could have been provided hundreds of pages of cake recipes or the schematics of Hi-Fi systems from the '60s or Straight Dope columns. Because, sure, they could have, but how successful would the case brought to them had been?
The fact is that the Patent Office looked at the body of evidence and deemed it credible. You don’t think the Patent Office was bamboozled by pages and pages of the equivalent of pseudoscience, do you? I don’t think you can since you can’t even point out how one piece of the evidence was faulty, let alone a decent enough portion of it so as to make all of it suspect.
Regardless, my point - though not elegantly stated - is that opinion polls are not evidence in their minds, or at least it’s not the main evidence that they are looking at. The main evidence in their minds are the experts who overwhelmingly make a convincing case that the term is most often used as disparaging to Native Americans.