But… it is a tribute. To a coach, actually, the story goes. So…
Woot! Found my own answer! cite
So, in light of this, if the trademark was revoked, they could still be the Washington Redskins, and market merchandise, etc., they just wouldn’t have a trademark; is that correct?
Could they still copyright the name and image?
Moreoverit’s it’s for a judge to determine if the rule against trademarks disparaging people living or dead is a restriction on speech violative of the First Amendment, and whether the rule is so vague as to be void under the Fifth Amendment.
I hadn’t heard that before it was posted here. It’s an interesting wrinkle to the story - it was a tribute because it was an acceptable nickname at the time. It probably wouldn’t be today.
Thanks for fighting my ignorance; I’m law stupid.
I still don’t think it should be up to the government to decide what is and is not offensive. I wouldn’t interpret ‘disparaging’ persons, groups, etc., as the same as ‘offending’ them. More like if your team logo was a likeness of Bill Clinton getting a blowjob or someone vomiting after drinking a Coke. Those would be “disparaging” Clinton and Coca-Cola respectively. But like I say, I’m law stupid, so I have no doubt I’m the one in disagreement with the law here. How has the term ‘disparaging’ been interpreted before?
If you saw a poll that said more than 50% of Native Americans were not offended by the word “Redskin,” would that change your mind?
I would be more influenced by the fact that half of them DO find it hurtful.
Can you go after the United Negro College Fund? Their name certainly was not disparaging in the 1940s but as a general rule we don’t use negro to refer to African Americans these days. Maybe UNCF isn’t trademarked.
Odesio
Less than half, since I said “…more than 50% of Native Americans were not offended.”
How about if more than 75% of Native Americans were not offended? (Or, to use your approach, if less than 25% of Native Americans were offended?
How many have to be offended before you care? I think 25% is still a sizeable percentage of hurt.
That seems implausible to me. It seems more reasonable that the name was found while casting around for “Red” themed names like the Boston Red Sox and Red Legs after they changed playing fields to share one with the Red Sox. They had been the Boston (football) Braves, and renaming Braves ith a “Red” theme, it seems natural Redskins would result. Especially given the overt racism of the era (the Redskins did not at the time permit black players).
It’s clear that “redskin” was originally a derogatory term, regardless of what one thinks of the team name. Also, I don’t think people choose team names to “honor” the subject – I think it’s more accurate to say some organizations choose team names that inspire fear (not because they expect real fear in their opponents, mind you.) The San Jose Sharks are not honoring a rich tradition of public service by toothy fish (and it’s even less likely they’re honoring lawyers.) No, sharks are scary predators, as are bruins, bears, eagles, lions, tigers, falcons, and so on.
Used in that sense, “redskin” fits right in, because Bad Indians were practically the original bogeymen that Colonists feared before there even was an American Revolution. In this sense, being used as name inspiration “respects” and “honors” the Native Americans only for fierceness, danger, strength in battle.
I think the message of this court decision is that the Native Americans you’re addressing this to lack the legal standing to protest the Celtics and Vikings names unless they can show heritage (and pass the laches barrier.)
To me it seems huge.
Well, it’s not as bad as the MLB Indians logo.
But let’s be honest–nobody in their right mind would walk up to a Native American and call them a “redskin”. Why? Because it’d be grossly insulting. Why should that moniker have any less impact for a sports team? Because it’s not personalized? I don’t think that’s good enough.
Does the statute explain how many people have to be offended by a trademark before it is disallowed?
I have to thoroughly disagree here. Based on the cite that both I and Bricker have provided, very few of the people who should theoretically be offended by the name “Redskins” actually are. Meanwhile, I think deliberately mispronouncing Celtic is, at best, displaying a lot of ignorance about the culture that you’re supposed to be honoring, and most likely demeaning. Try telling a Canadian that their country is called Canadia and see how well that goes over.
I agree.
Legally, I don’t think they should be forced to change their name. But it could eb a real money spinner if they did. All new jerseys and other logo merchandise could be sold. And they could come off as the good guys.
You can’t possibly be serious with this comparison. And apparently the standard pronunciation at the time the team was named was “sel-tic.”
Saying it’s implausible doesn’t dispute the cites that I provided. Yes, they moved to Fenway, so sharing names with a team that they were no longer sharing a field with wouldn’t make sense. So sure, perhaps part of the reasoning was to have a “Red” theme, but that doesn’t detract at all from what was said in the cites that they wanted to honor the coach. Even if that is the case, they could very well have a “Red” theme AND honor the coach at the same time.
If it’s clear that Redskin was originally a derogatory term, then I’m sure you can find a cite for that? According the the wikipedia cite I linked, yes it is NOW seen by some as a pejorative, but there’s no indication that it was originally used that way. If it’s offensive to refer to Indians as redskinned, then it should also be offensive to use the term Black or White, but it’s not.
And the second part is exactly my point. Yes, using animals as mascots are intended to strike fear into their opponents, but that’s just as true for any other team that DOESN’T use animals, like the Vikings, Spartans, Braves, Warriors, etc. Those names all strike “fear” in the same way, because they are remembered as powerful and feared warriors. How is it not an honor to be remembered as warriors that struck fear into the hearts of your opponents? So sure, animal names aren’t meant to honor anything, but you won’t find any group of feared warriors that aren’t, at the very least, neutral.
Do you actually have anything to back up what you’re saying there? According the cite I gave earlier, it was most likely either a physical descriptor (akin to white or black) or originated from the Indians themselves. It does offer a third theory that isn’t too far from what you suggest, but says there’s no historical evidence to back it up.
And even if it does “only” honor the Indians for their fierceness and strength in battle, again, how is that something bad to be remembered for? You don’t honor brilliant scientists or political leaders in sports. Like I said, I do think that Dan Snyder should make some effort to initiate programs to educate people on the other cultural aspects of the indigenous people, but remembering people as being fierce warriors is pretty damn far from being an insult in my mind.
The comment you responded to here wasn’t really directed at the decision itself, but that people have a double standard about this. I hear a lot of outcry about how the Redskins are offensive, most of them not even having any substantial Indian heritage, and these same people don’t say a thing about how mispronouncing Celtics is insulting to the Celts or perhaps how the Fighting Irish is perpetuating a stereotype about the Irish or that the Vikings insults Scandanavia for being bloodthirsty savages.