U.S. Patent Office cancels trademark registrations for NFL’s Washington Redskins

Parent Cafe
1

<p>

</p>

<p>Wow!</p>

2

<p><a href=“http://tracking.si.com/2014/06/18/washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled/”>http://tracking.si.com/2014/06/18/washington-redskins-trademark-cancelled/&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

3

<p>That’s one way to put an end to the controversy.</p>

<p>I expect we will see more and more of this kind of "workaround"as it becomes harder and harder for Congress to get anything done. </p>

4

<p>Legally though, this is not about ending Redskins use. It only means anyone can use the name, which I suspect will happen. This action will not stop the name’s use; most likely, it will increase the use. Anyone can now produce Redskins shirts and paraphernalia. Well, if they lose the appeal. that is. </p>

5

<p>So the patent offce can cancel and approve patents based on their own criteria? It will be interesting to see if they are consistent across the board or if there are numerous instances of similar patents that have been approved. </p>

6

<p>So what would the new name be? Have they started thinking about it?</p>

7

<p>^^ this will incentivize them to get a different team name and a bunch of new trademarks that will not be yanked for being offensive. </p>

8

<p>Did the PTO rule in the past on this or a similar issue regarding the name, wherein the team prevailed?</p>

<p>If it’s upheld, who knows what may follow? A market for “third party” Redskins T-shirts and such might become a frenzy for avid fans in Washington DC. Snyder should just accept the handwriting on the wall and try to get ahead of the parade on this matter, if it’s not too late. I understand that the Indian head icon is still entitled to trademark status.</p>

9

<p>"A January 2014 AP survey found that 83% of U.S. adults would not change the name. Incidentally, Native-Americans in every poll ever taken have supported the name.</p>

<p>This is a non-issue except to some in the media and the US govt.</p>

10

<p>So the Pirates get to keep their name? The Raiders?</p>

<p><a href=“Here’s Mad Magazine’s Politically Correct NFL Team Names, In Case The ‘Buccaneers’ Was Too Offensive – UPROXX”>Sports – UPROXX;

11

<p>Why is the Redskins patented anyway? I’d have thought the name would be copyrighted. I thought patents had to do something.</p>

12

<p>Good.
Maybe the Red Mesa HS in Arizona that is on an Indian Reservation will stop using this too.
<a href=“Red Mesa High School - Wikipedia”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Mesa_High_School&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;

<p>We also need to get rid of:
Kansas City Chiefs
Fighting Irish
The Raiders</p>

13

<p>Designs can be patented. I have a design that is patented.</p>

<p>If Native Americans find it offensive, why do they insist on keeping it? It’s different from pirates or raiders. </p>

14

<p>

</p>

<p>They are not required to have a new name.</p>

<p>All that this means is that they don’t have trademark protection on the name.<br>
They can still use it but it is a business risk since other people can use the name and they can’t legally object. </p>

<p>For instance, people can start selling “Redskin” Jerseys, “Redskin” footballs, etc. I believe that people can’t do that if they are using the same color scheme (without the word “Redskin”) since i would expect they also trademarked their color scheme as applied to football/team items.</p>

15

<p>Wouldn’t you think it stupid if a soccer team from Middle East calls themselves Pale Skins and put a Rambo picture on their chest?</p>

16

<p>@mathmom It is a trademark, not a patent.</p>

17

<p>

</p>

<p>Sure.
Especially since the Rambo character’s father was a Navajo Indian.</p>

<p>But I also think it is stupid that a football team names itself “The Dolphins”. Dolphins? They aren’t even a land mammal and have no ability to either run. I guess they can catch a pass by balancing the ball on their nose, but that is hardly a secure way to hold the ball while trying to move down field.</p>

<p>I also find the name “The Saints” as inappropriate due to the obvious religious overtone.
“The Patriots” is also inappropriately jingoistic in these times.</p>

18

<p>The same thing happened 15 years ago and was overturned. </p>

<p>I looked up some news reports about what happened then and they say the Court applied a version of “laches”, which means the case - filed in 1992 - came too late for it to be equitable. The word refers to delay and it means it wouldn’t be fair to hear a case brought some 60 years after the logo and name appeared and 35 years after a formal trademark was granted (and then after renewals in different forms). </p>

<p>I don’t see how that would be different now because there is no law saying “redskins” is offensive unless the Court says “well, times they are a-changing”. I’m not sure how that overcomes the burden of equity, meaning we’re talking about many, many millions of dollars invested in a trademark that has been upheld in law. The point of laches is there’s a time to file suit and then that passes. The time of passing is related to how much the trademark has become valuable, how much has been invested in it, how much the owner has relied on it. So I think the team would win.</p>

<p>That said, I think they should change the name. </p>

19

<p>Well, which mascots COULD catch a pass? A gold miner using the bucket he dips in the river? A guy manning an oil derrick? A bird of prey?</p>

20

<p>Was Rambo’s father a native american? Didn’know. I am sure you got what I was saying anyway.</p>