- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
pakfanistan, I am so sick of hearing your liberal biased drivel. NO ONE dares to have an opposing view lest they be stupid, ignorant conservatives. Tell you what I’ll match you in an IQ contest and spot you 40 points. And I too am sick and tired of a president (lower case on purpose) that lies and talks down to me. He will become known as the worst president in history, yes even worse than James Buchanan (who beats carter by a long shot).
I don’t really care if people disagree with me. I thought SR44 and I were having an interesting conversation until lil Ricky and the rest of the tea party cheering squad showed up.
I would be interested to hear which part of my ‘liberal biased drivel’ you think is liberal, biased, and disagree with. Then we could have an actual conversation on our differences, rather than labeling me a ‘shrill for the administration’, or as ‘drinking the kool aid’.
Just like Rick I doubt you even know what my position is.
If you read it then I assume you realize the relevant legal question is whether at the time the trademark was registered whether it was disparaging. That means that the challengers to the trademark must submit evidence that the trademark would be considered disparaging as they were registered. The trademark was registered in 1967. Where is the evidence that in 1967 the term was offensive? If so why did anyone wait until 1992 to file the first case? Where was the evidence that showed what public opinion was back in 1967?
Whether the mark is politically incorrect or disparaging today is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The evidence the TTAB did use was a National Congress of American Indians’ (“NCAI”) 1993 Resolution 93- 11. What someone said or thought in 1993 is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether in 1967 a trademark was offensive.
Just because 50 senators and a president have inserted themselves into the discussion does not mean that “rule of law” should be ignored.
Oh, you’ve made your position clear enough not only on this subject but many other ones that show exactly where you’re coming from. The difficulty is no one can have an opposing view without drawing your ire. For me, I find it hard to see how someone, you included, are liberal in actual mindset, rather than in political leaning, when you REFUSE to even acknowledge that someone can have an opposing point of view. Instead of liberal I think we should refer to those on the political left as anarchists. It’s a much more fitting description.
Smarter than the average bear
If you read it then I assume you realize the relevant legal question is whether at the time the trademark was registered whether it was disparaging. That means that the challengers to the trademark must submit evidence that the trademark would be considered disparaging as they were registered. The trademark was registered in 1967. Where is the evidence that in 1967 the term was offensive? If so why did anyone wait until 1992 to file the first case? Where was the evidence that showed what public opinion was back in 1967?
Yes actually. I thought it was pretty well laid out how they came to the conclusion that it was offensive in 1967. Which part did you disagree with?
Whether the mark is politically incorrect or disparaging today is completely irrelevant from a legal standpoint. The evidence the TTAB did use was a National Congress of American Indians’ (“NCAI”) 1993 Resolution 93- 11. What someone said or thought in 1993 is wholly irrelevant to the question of whether in 1967 a trademark was offensive.
Actually, they also noted that the definition for the word started being noted as offensive, starting around the ’60s, and also that usage to refer to Native Americans dropped off around the same time. They also made a point of saying that the name Redskins is still clearly associated with Native Americans.
Just because 50 senators and a president have inserted themselves into the discussion does not mean that “rule of law” should be ignored.
What evidence do you have to show that this was a political decision, other than the fact that you disagree with it?
Oh, you’ve made your position clear enough not only on this subject but many other ones that show exactly where you’re coming from. The difficulty is no one can have an opposing view without drawing your ire. For me, I find it hard to see how someone, you included, are liberal in actual mindset, rather than in political leaning, when you REFUSE to even acknowledge that someone can have an opposing point of view. Instead of liberal I think we should refer to those on the political left as anarchists. It’s a much more fitting description.
And yet, after repeated requests, nobody will list what I think. It’s so clear it should be easy. Then we can get to the meat of specifically what you disagree with.
Labeling liberals as anarchists makes very little sense. I don’t know how they can be considered pro big government, and also anarchists. Since libertarians are so fond of eliminating government, I would think they’re closer to anarchy.
What evidence do you have to show that this was a political decision, other than the fact that you disagree with it?
The fact that the same body of evidence used in the prior 1992 case of which the TTAB found in favor of rejecting the trademark was overruled by federal court. No new evidence was presented in this case yet the TTAB ruled in exactly the same way. We will see how “rule of law” applies this time.
I saw no evidence to support their “finding” relating to 1967 thoughts. Did you?
I have figured it out. pakfanistan is racist.
And apparently cannot have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him without calling them names. Pretty sad.The fact that the same body of evidence used in the prior 1992 case of which the TTAB found in favor of rejecting the trademark was overruled by federal court. No new evidence was presented in this case yet the TTAB ruled in exactly the same way. We will see how “rule of law” applies this time.
I saw no evidence to support their “finding” relating to 1967 thoughts. Did you?
A large part of why the federal court overuled was because of the doctrine of laches, or, there was an unreasonable delay in filing the claim. Another court ruled that laches was applied inappropriately, which opened it up for them to file another claim.
As for the evidence, I think at least the two things I listed previously are applicable.
I have figured it out. pakfanistan is racist.<br>
And apparently cannot have a discussion with anyone who disagrees with him without calling them names. Pretty sad.And yet, I’m doing the exact thing you say I cannot.
What happened to the whole thing where you weren’t going to respond to me? I miss those days. I didn’t feel like I needed hip waders to get through the forum.
I refuse to read this stupid f-cking thread, but pass along this lovely satire without further comment:
http://kissingsuzykolber.uproxx.com/2014/07/white-history-month-dan-snyder.html
I refuse to read this stupid f-cking thread, but pass along this lovely satire without further comment:
It’s not so bad as long as you skip Rick’s comments. Some really good points have been made.
I refuse to read this stupid f-cking thread, but pass along this lovely satire without further comment:
It’s not so bad as long as you skip Rick’s comments. Some really good points have been made.
You mean like where you call everyone who disagrees with you names?
Yeah, except that didn’t happen.
It’s mostly just you, and I think a case can be made that I’m not calling you names, since you really are a numbnuts.
Yeah, except that didn’t happen.
Ten dollars says you cannot prove that.
<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pakfan is tan wrote:</div>
Yeah, except that didn’t happen.Ten dollars says you cannot prove that.
See the conversation between myself and StateRed44.
Shoot me an email and I’ll tell you where to send my $10.
Also, it’s hilarious that someone edited my username.
Also, it’s hilarious that someone edited my username.
It was determined to be offensive to those from Afganistan, unlike the US government we had complaints about it.
It’s not like you have a right to that name.
It’s not like you have a right to that name.
Then cancel my trademark on it.
Am I going to get my $10?
Fast forward to 2035. page 8,221, post # 114,238:
Rick: You are stupid
Page 8,221, post 114,239:
Pakfanistan: You are more stupid.
Wait, where did he go?
This riveting discussion suddenly seems so one-sided.
No no no, you’ve got it wrong, I’m good and wholesome and would never be insulting, irrational, or inflammatory. That’s just that horrible racist pakfanistan besmirching my good name.
Just an FYI guys, don’t call Rick on his crap or he’ll change your username and password.
If you are smart you can figure it out.
I changed your username from mine back to yours.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
