I continue to be amazed and slightly bemused by the insistence people put upon their legal right to be a dick and their coincident belief that it should matter to me that they get to be a dick.
Casinos are not reparations: they fall under the rubric of treaty and sovereignty.
So the Pittsburgh Cocksuckers can’t register a trademark? Too bad.
And the government isn’t forcing anything. You can sell Darkie toothpaste if you want. But the government won’t step in and back you up if somebody else decides to sell Darkie toothpaste. In practice this is a pretty weak ruling. Even if upheld on appeal, “The team will also retain its common-law rights, which would allow it to sue any organization or corporation attempting to use the name without consent.” A more arduous process, but who cares? It’s still a matter of what sort of services private enterprise is demanding from the government.
US Customs won’t be obliged to stop counterfeit Red[del]neck[/del]skins merchandise at the border, but the Washington team will still be able to sue.
What exactly do you think might happen in those instances?
My understanding is that the last patent reform bill changed this to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. Otherwise, they could appeal directly to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but the record and arguments would be limited to those that had been raised before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
It’s already happened. Back in 2003, Dykes on Bikes were prevented from getting their name trademarked under exactly the same rule that’s being used against the Redskins. You know what happened as a result?
Pretty much nothing. Dykes on Bikes are still around. The gay rights movement continues to be the most successful civil rights movement in history. And we’re in the middle of the second term of a Democratic president - who’s also the most vocal defender of gay rights that’s ever held the office. And the next POTUS is almost certain to be a pro-gay Democrat, as well. Literally the only fallout was that some lesbians found it moderately more work to sue some other lesbians for selling “Dykes on Bikes” t-shirts.
I expect the results of the Redskins ban to be precisely as catastrophic.
No. They were denied registration of their trademark.
They appealed and were eventually permitted to register. But the outcome that you describe would not have been much different, because denial of a registration is not denial of trademark rights.
I agree, except that I expect that the Redskins will not be able to hold out forever. Eventually, public opinion in combination with the NFL’s interest in dispelling controversy will bring about a change.
Honest to god: I had five different revisions of that post, and in each one i was very deliberate in specifying that it was the registration they were denied, and not the trademark. Except the last one. :smack:
Sorry, a federal court overturned it. I should have been more clear. But the real issue is why.
I have seen it represented different ways:
And then there’s this:
Since the quote appears to be from the judge’s ruling, then yes, it seems that evidence was questioned by the judge.
The SB Nation article does continue, however, with this:
So obviously the appeals process will take time and it might go either way but it seems that I was right that evidence was at least part of the original decision to overturn, and the part you are touting seems to be something that was addressed this time.
It’s not that old, I didn’t think. I think most of the posters from 2009 are still around upon reading it a little more thoroughly.
The fact is that I didn’t even notice who started the thread. I searched for a thread with Redskins in it and this was the most recent thread so I posted to it.
One could easily make the observation that the fact that there are any Native Americans left after what some feel is the most massive act of genocide in human history would indicate that they are all of those things.
But, you know, you’re the expert on mocking people. Why don’t you mock those 5.2 million Natives in person. Go to a reservation and call them all Redskins. Let us know how that works out for you. I would assume a lot differently than just making snarky comments on the internet from your mom’s basement.
In practical terms, I agree with you of course. But in the court of public opinion - a public which will undoubtedly use any victory as an impetus for more pressure on Snyder and the NFL to get the name changed - it can potentially be a big deal.
The fact is that this thread was the most recent thread about the controversy even though it never went away. When it’s in the news, it’s in the ears of people who might be putting on the pressure and those who might eventually have to cave to it.
I don’t think a regulatory agency or court of law will get the Redskins to change their name, directly or indirectly. But I do think that decisions and events such as this will hasten it happening. And needless to say I consider that a good thing.
