- This topic has 434 replies, 28 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 8 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?
Where did this idea that someone has a right not to be offended come from? Freedom means some people do things you do not like.
This is just an extension of the helicopter parent. Trying to make sure nothing bad every happens to anyone. That is simply not life.<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>pakfanistan wrote:</div>
Seriously, where did this idea that someone has a right to a trademark come from?Where did this idea that someone has a right not to be offended come from? Freedom means some people do things you do not like.<br>
This is just an extension of the helicopter parent. Trying to make sure nothing bad every happens to anyone. That is simply not life.Within certain bounds, it’s common courtesy. As decent humans we shouldn’t go out of our way to offend people. Likewise we have the obligation to try not to be offended by everything.
Not everything that offends someone is PC run amok.
If you want to get theological about it, it’s an old, old concept.
Romans 14:14-17 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
Romans 14:14-17 I know and am convinced on the authority of the Lord Jesus that no food, in and of itself, is wrong to eat. But if someone believes it is wrong, then for that person it is wrong. And if another believer is distressed by what you eat, you are not acting in love if you eat it. Don’t let your eating ruin someone for whom Christ died. Then you will not be criticized for doing something you believe is good. For the Kingdom of God is not a matter of what we eat or drink, but of living a life of goodness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.
The next time I have a craving for human flesh, I don’t wanna hear any of you bitching about it.
Jerry Jones makes the business argument I (unsuccessfully) was trying to make yesterday:
“As far as the big debate that’s going on, I don’t have any statement on that,” Jones told USAToday.com’s Jarrett Bell. “But as far as having team marks that aren’t protected, that’s a disadvantage.
“That would be one of the things that you’d consider if you’re going to do everything that you could to promote the franchise, to promote that name. If you didn’t have exclusive use of that name, then that would be a deterrent to using it.”
^ Is there a joke in there somewhere about CD and a Cali beach bunny?
I suspect yes, but now that I don’t have the safety net of two time zones betwixt myself and the bunny in question, I’m keeping my big yap shut 🙂
Within certain bounds, it’s common courtesy. As decent humans we shouldn’t go out of our way to offend people. Likewise we have the obligation to try not to be offended by everything.
Not everything that offends someone is PC run amok.
Maybe not everything but in this case it is.
You and I have had many back and forths in which both of us said things that were offensive to the other. You seem to be OK with that but get worked up about this? Seens two faced to me. If you believe no one should ever be offended you should certainly practice what you preach.
Maybe not everything but in this case it is.
No it’s not. Evidence was presented to establish that the term “redskin” is a racial slur. Once that is established, it can’t be trademarked. There’s nothing PC about it.
You and I have had many back and forths in which both of us said things that were offensive to the other. You seem to be OK with that but get worked up about this? Seens two faced to me. If you believe no one should ever be offended you should certainly practice what you preach.
I’m not particularly worked up about this, and I’m not sure where you’re getting the impression that I am. I simply answered your question about where the idea that someone has the right to not be offended comes from.
As for being hypocritical or two-faced, I’m obviously not very concerned with being offended or offending so I’m not sure where the hypocrisy is.
As for being hypocritical or two-faced, I’m obviously not very concerned with being offended or offending so I’m not sure where the hypocrisy is.
From what I can see your viewpoint seems to be the Redskins should chage their name because it offends someone. If you do not care if someone is offended why do you support this? If I misunderstand your position, I apologize.
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.
I think this is the kind of thing that some politicians like seeing us squabble over… because we’re getting all riled up about this instead of the stuff THEY are doing in Washington that REALLY matters.
Couldn’t a redskin be a potato?
Nobody is being personally “called” a “Redskin”. Why is that so hard to understand? Which talking head did you pick that talking point up from?
The governments “job” is not to bully private businesses with 80+ year historical names. The first coach of the Redskins was an Indian and the team was named to honor him.
Nobody is being personally “called” a “Redskin”. Why is that so hard to understand? Which talking head did you pick that talking point up from?
JFC…
I’m not saying, and have never said, anyone is being called “redskin”.
I’m saying, the test for whether it’s offensive or not is, would you use it to refer to a native american.
The governments “job” is not to bully private businesses with 80+ year historical names. The first coach of the Redskins was an Indian and the team was named to honor him.
The USPTOs job is to enforce trademark law. Trademark law doesn’t allow for trademarking things which would be considered disparaging. I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
Nobody is being ‘bullied’ here. Nobody has said they don’t have the right to use the Redskins name. They’re free to use it until Jesus comes back (and after, depending on where they stand), it’s just not protected by trademark. Because it’s considered disparaging. Which they heard hours of evidence on.
No, the test is whether you would refer to the Washington pro football team as the Redskins. That is the only issue at hand. Personalization and name calling is NOT the issue. This is a historical team name of 80 years.
Why is your little example different than walking up to an Indian and calling them “Chief”, “Brave” or “Warrior”?
And the court has struck down your second arguement, correct?
Or see how brainwashed and sensitive they are by calling them “Indian”. Good luck getting Cleveland to change that name.
also, these folks or their ancestors carried their butt over here just like everyone else…Nobody was placed here by God or evolved here. Tribal American is more like it.
No, the test is whether you would refer to the Washington pro football team as the Redskins. That is the only issue at hand. Personalization and name calling is NOT the issue. This is a historical team name of 80 years.
Why is your little example different than walking up to an Indian and calling them “Chief”, “Brave” or “Warrior”?
Irrelevant. The team isn’t called the chiefs, braves, or warriors. Also, if someone was a chief, brave, or warrior, would you even hesitate to call them that?
And the court has struck down your second arguement, correct?
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
also, these folks or their ancestors carried their butt over here just like everyone else…Nobody was placed here by God or evolved here. Tribal American is more like it.
Shouldn’t there be a statute of limitations after which a population can be considered native? Doesn’t it seem like before Moses is an acceptable cutoff?
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.
Again, why do you care? You have stated you do not care if something is ofensive so why are lobbying for this? Only reason I can see is political brainwashing.
Again, why do you care? You have stated you do not care if something is ofensive so why are lobbying for this? Only reason I can see is political brainwashing.
I’m saying I understand why the USPTO cancelled the trademark, and I think it was the correct decision based on my understanding (limited) of trademark law, and also not a political decision. I’m also saying that I think people who are arguing that the name can’t be considered offensive, or is no more offensive that Chiefs or Braves are being disingenuous.
The only reason I can see that you can’t comprehend what I’m saying is political brainwashing.
Here you go Stan:
“We’ve seen this story before. And just like last time, today’s ruling will have no effect at all on the team’s ownership of and right to use the Redskins name and logo.
‘Redskins Are Denied Trademarks’
-Washington Post, April 3, 1999‘Redskins Can Keep Trademark, Judge Rules’
-Washington Post, October 2, 2003We are confident we will prevail once again, and that the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s divided ruling will be overturned on appeal. This case is no different than an earlier case, where the Board cancelled the Redskins’ trademark registrations, and where a federal district court disagreed and reversed the Board.
As today’s dissenting opinion correctly states, “the same evidence previously found insufficient to support cancellation” here “remains insufficient” and does not support cancellation.
This ruling – which of course we will appeal – simply addresses the team’s federal trademark registrations, and the team will continue to own and be able to protect its marks without the registrations. The registrations will remain effective while the case is on appeal.
When the case first arose more than 20 years ago, a federal judge in the District of Columbia ruled on appeal in favor of the Washington Redskins and their trademark registrations.
Why?
As the district court’s ruling made clear in 2003, the evidence ‘is insufficient to conclude that during the relevant time periods the trademark at issue disparaged Native Americans…’ The court continued, ‘The Court concludes that the [Board’s] finding that the marks at issue ‘may disparage’ Native Americans is unsupported by substantial evidence, is logically flawed, and fails to apply the correct legal standard to its own findings of fact.’ Those aren’t my words. That was the court’s conclusion. We are confident that when a district court review’s today’s split decision, it will reach a similar conclusion.
In today’s ruling, the Board’s Marc Bergsman agreed, concluding in his dissenting opinion:
It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority to make petitioner’s case have some semblance of meaning.
The evidence in the current claim is virtually identical to the evidence a federal judge decided was insufficient more than ten years ago. We expect the same ultimate outcome here.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
