No, I’ve been trying to address three separate issues.
1) Is the name ‘Redskins’ offensive?
I think the test for this one is fairly straight forward. Would you call a native american a redskin to their face? I don’t believe anybody can credibly claim that they would.
2) Is canceling the trademark a political move?
I don’t think so. It looks like a pretty straight forward case of a government agency actually doing their job. They held a hearing, were presented with a load of evidence, and made a ruling. This isn’t the first time the Redskins trademark has been cancelled. It was also cancelled in 1999, but overturned on a technicality.
3) Is canceling the trademark infringement on the rights of the Redskins organization?
I’m a little conflicted about whether there’s a right to trademarks. They’re not mentioned in the constitution or bill of rights, and while I understand there is a common law right to trademark, that seems to be a part of historical precedent in trademark protection rather than a defined right like freedom of speech. I’m not familiar with the intricacies of common law, and it’s way above my pay grade. To me, they look like a restricted privilege, because as far as I can tell, they’re intended to increase confidence and minimize confusion by preventing people from copying branding and potentially deceiving consumers. In the sense that it’s limited, and in a way dictates what others are not allowed to do (copy branding) vs dictating what everyone is allowed to do (freedom of speech), I don’t think it’s an inalienable right. I could probably be convinced otherwise.
