Redskins "racial slur"?

[Econoline]

Jim, I just came across that "Pearls Before Swine" strip and I guess I was mostly poking fun of myself for my tendency to go along with Willy's pronouncements...

As for the name of the football team, I have to confess that I've never been all that much of a sports fan (yeah, I've gotten on the bandwagon on those rare occasions when Chicago teams have actually won anything important, but the only time I had any real emotional involvement was when my late father's beloved White Sox finally got the World Series win they had evaded for literally his entire lifetime) and so I can't understand the mentality that cares that much about the name of a multi-million dollar commercial enterprise. Yeah, some of the outrage on the part of white liberals might be "manufactured" but from what I can tell much of the reaction by American Indians is real, with a real historical basis.

The true test is whether, if you... wait, scratch that; let's not make it about you, Jim. Let's just say if someone who was not a football fan--or maybe someone from a completely different part of the country who has no particular feelings one way or the other about the D.C. NFL team--if that person were to call a random American Indian who he doesn't know very well a "redskin" (in, maybe, a business meeting, e.g.) would that term be seen as a racial slur? Would that be a term that was used to someone's face if one didn't know him and weren't angry at him? Would someone be more likely to use that term if he were angry?

Okay. I get it, Jim. The signature line is meant to be an in-your-face declaration that you don't care what other people think--much like Timster's chain-smoking on the way to the hospital after his heart attack. In the end, this is just very small BBS here and not the whole wide world, so I guess it doesn't make a great deal of difference, and like I said, I don't really understand the emotion involved anyway. But sometimes--even if this isn't one of those times--it *IS* appropriate to care what other people think.



P.S. I deliberately left rubato's name off the quote from his post (not that I expected you to forget who said it, Jim!) because I thought it was true despite the identity of the person who said it--and despite the fact that he broke my irony-meter when he said it.

[BoSoxGal]

More manufactured outrage:

Anti-Redskins Commercial Will Air During NBA Finals

ICTMN Staff
6/10/14
The Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation, a California Tribe, has bought commercial slots in seven media markets (Chicago, Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, Sacramento, San Francisco and Washington) for the purpose of showing a commercial that protests the team name and mascot of Washington's NFL franchise. The NBA finals are shown on ABC.

The ad that will air tonight is a one-minute version of "Proud to Be," which was prepared by NCAI for the Super Bowl but was not shown during that broadcast. Here's that version:




According to reports, the commercial did not air during the Super Bowl because NCAI lacked the funds to buy the air time. But an Upworthy writer ventures that it's a moot point because the NFL doesn't allow activism in ads that run during the big game, nor would it ever sell air time to an ad that tarnishes its brand.

"We applaud the Yocha Dehe Wintun Nation for having the vision and commitment to ensure that the American public receives the message loud and clear that Native Americans strongly oppose the use of this disparaging slur," NCAI Executive Director Jackie Pata and Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter said in a joint statement: linky. "By airing this ad during the NBA Championships, this message for change will be brought into the living rooms of millions of American all across the country."


Read more at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.c ... als-155240

[Big RR]

Jim--you've obviously made up your mind that the name of the Redskins is not offensive to anyone except for some small group of persons who are whipped up into a frenzy by a manufactured outrage, but I do have a question for you: If it could be shown that a significant percentage (you can define the number) of native americans/american Indians are offended by the name, would you change your position? I realize you said you did change your position on the Bullits, but then it appeared to be because the name was being perverted by some to glorify gun violence, but would genuine offense be enough to change your position, taking all the other "facts" as you understand (such as the name was intended to celebrate the American Indians, not denigrate them, etc.)?

Now please don't answer that it could never be shown; indeed, while I believe that the outrage is genuine, I will concede that if most of it were proven to be manufactured and not genuine, I wouldn't care if the name was kept or not. I fully concede that the bandwagon sometimes shifts opinions and manufactures passion where none existed before; certainly you must also concede that just because people haven't raised their voices previously doesn't mean they are not offended.

[Joe Guy]

What if you were to find out that Lord Jim is Cherokee for Big Fat Ugly Butthole Democrat who hates Ronald Reagan?

Would you change your name?

[Econoline]

Big RR - while I can't presume to speak for Jim, I'm pretty sure that even if it were shown that 100% of Native Americans were offended by the name, Jim's response would be that that's only so because of "manufactured outrage"--i.e., "outside agitators" comin' in and stirrin' up the peaceable darkies redskins.

I think part of the difference in my own perspective is that I'm just enough older that I can recall a childhood in the 1950s full of bad western movies and TV shows in which the cowboys and the cavalry always used the term "redskin" as an insult that was exactly equivalent to the term "savage".

[BoSoxGal]

Here in Montana, 'dirty Indian' and 'dirty redskin' are interchangeable as the redneck's racist slur of choice. When I worked at Blackfeet, and then later with Indians from Rocky Boy's and Fort Belknap, I never knew any Indians who were okay being called 'redskin'.

And no, they didn't need this liberal do-gooder to tell them to be angry about it.

[Guinevere]

Manufacture *this* outrage:

For the second time in 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has cancelled the federal trademark of the Washington Redskins on grounds that the team name is disparaging to Native Americans. Through its Trademark Trial and Appeal Court, the USTPO first cancelled the trademark in 1999, but the decision was overturned by a federal court on appeal in 2003. The Redskins are likely to appeal this new cancellation as well and would retain federal trademark protection pending appeal. An appeal could take years to play out.

What today's cancellation means

While an appeal by the Redskins would stay any legal impact for some time, cancellation of registration means the Redskins name is no longer protected by the federal government as an exclusive trademark. A trademark is a mark, often a word or symbol, that distinguishes a source of goods from others. If it is registered with the USPTO, a trademark can be deemed exclusive to the registering businesses. Registration carries a number of advantages, including a legal presumption of ownership and the exclusive right to use the mark in connection with specific goods and services. Under the federal Lanham Act, a trademark may be cancelled if it brings a distinct category of people into disrepute.

In a 2-1 vote today, the USPTO concluded, just like it did in 1999, that the term "redskins" disparages Native Americans because of its historical meaning as a derogatory term. As a result, the Redskins cannot use federal trademark protection to stop counterfeits and other businesses from commercially exploiting their name in selling merchandise and apparel. In theory, the Redskins and their owner, Daniel Snyder, could lose millions of dollars as a result of the cancellation.

What today's cancellation does not mean

Most importantly, cancellation of registration does not force the Redskins to change their name. Cancellation is only about legal protection for the exclusive use of the name under federal trademark law. The law cannot compel the Redskins to change the name. Instead, critics of the name can attempt to make it more difficult for the Redskins to profit off the name, and thus give the team financial incentives to voluntarily change it. Political pressure can also be applied on the Redskins. Last month 50 U.S. senators wrote a letter to NFL commissioner Roger Goodell urging him to recommend the team change its name. Last fall President Obama stressed, "If I were the owner of the team and I knew that there was a name of my team -- even if it had a storied history -- that was offending a sizeable group of people, I'd think about changing it." But this type of pressure cannot compel a change in team name.

Cancellation of the registration of the Redskins mark also does not end the team's exclusive use of the Redskins logo and other distinctive art owned by the team. Also, cancellation doesn't nullify existing licensing contracts between the Redskins and businesses to produce memorabilia and other items using the word "Redskins." Royalties still must be paid on those licensing contracts. Significant adverse economic impact on the Redskins does not occur immediately.

Cancellation also does not preclude the Redskins from seeking other forms of legal protection for their name. First, the Redskins can still attempt to enforce exclusivity under federal law -- specifically Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act -- even with the cancellation. Cancellation, however, makes it more difficult to enforce exclusivity under federal law since the Redskins lose legal presumptions, customs and counterfeiting remedies.

Second, while federal trademark registration is a powerful form of trademark protection, it is not the only method of protecting a brand name. The Redskins, which are headquartered in Richmond, Virginia, may enjoy legal protection under Virginia law and the laws of other states in which they do business. There are also court decisions in those states -- better known as "common law" -- that may be favorable to the Redskins for exclusive use of the team name. Indeed, the Redskins likely enjoy some protection under common law so long as the mark -- the Redskins -- is used in commerce. In other words, even if the USPTO ruling prevails over a Redskins appeal, the Redskins may continue to enjoy legal protection through other sources of law. Expect future litigation to determine the exact legal rights of the Redskins to enjoy exclusive commercial use of the team name.

Lastly, cancellation of the Redskins' federal trademark has no legal effect on other team names that arguably relate to Native Americans. The Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Chicago Blackhawks and Golden State Warriors are not parties to the Redskins legal dispute, and actions by the USPTO on the Redskins name do not impact those teams.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/ne ... z350yI1NlY




http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/ne ... index.html

[Joe Guy]

What was the reason for the USPTO to take this action?

Were they just randomly cancelling trademarks or did an outraged group take action to begin the process?

[Long Run]

Thanks, Guin. I heard the blurb on the radio on the way in today, but there was no context. I have a similar question to Joe's, though, that if the USPTO already has been overruled on this very issue, how is it that it can raise this issue again?

[Guinevere]

My very superficial understanding (I haven't read the decision, only a few blurbs and Michael's piece - which gives some hints) is that it was a petition to the USPTO, and the Plaintiffs in this proceeding are different (and maybe alleging different facts/injuries) than the Plaintiffs in the earlier proceeding - which would give the USPTO the opportunity to make another ruling. But that's some supposition/assumption, and that plus a buck might buy you a cheap cup of coffee.

Big RR - this is your area -- educate us please!

[RayThom]

There are million$ to be lost in marketing and merchandising. If this ruling is upheld look for the Washington franchise to rename the team -- post haste. It is ALWAYS about the money.

[Guinevere]

The Economist steps into the discussion. Snippet:

Second, this is the point in the column where I'm supposed to discuss whether Dan Snyder, the Redskins' owner, should change the name, regardless of the court's ruling, on sheer principle. But really what's the point? The team's name is self-evidently a racial slur. If Mr Snyder cared that it offended large groups of people he'd change it. But he has repeatedly shown himself to be indifferent to public contempt. Perhaps Mr Snyder will one day grow tired of the public opprobrium. But I suspect at some point he, and perhaps the NFL's other owners as well, will realise what an enormous amount of money they all stand to make on rebranding the team. That, not the easily overturned ruling of an obscure federal agency, and not, unfortunately, public opposition, is what will eventually relegate the Redskins name to the trash heap, where it belongs.

Full article here:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/gametheo ... ontroversy

[Big RR]

Guin--I do patents much more than trademarks, but as I understand it, a trademark registration can always be refused or revoked if the term is found to be obscene or offensive. Here it looks like the Trademark Trial and Appeals Board (TTAB) entertained a motions for revocation of the mark and ruled that it was obscene/offensive. I am fairly certain that the Petitioners are different than the earlier action as are some of the factual bases argued. Hence another action can be brought.

The decision can be appealed to the Court of Appeals (I believe for the Federal Circuit, but I am unsure), or the Redskins could being an action in DC District Court to compel the commissioner not to cancel the mark (and this can then be appealed through the DC circuit and ultimately to the USSC if the grant cert).

I think the problem with revoking the mark on these grounds is the lack of certainty in the statute, it is akin to a lot of the obscenity litigation in this regard. I'm certain the Redskins/NFL will argue along these lines and present evidence that native americans do not universally consider the term offensive, saying it's more just a ply to extort money from them, ruin their business, etc. Since they apparently won in overturning a cancellation in 1999, I wouldn't be surprised if they won here as well (although I haven't read the opinion so I am not sure what grounds they won on).

[Big RR]

Interesting, in 1999 it appears that the case was overturned on procedural grounds by the DC district court, finding laches (waiting too long to bring your claim so it is unfair to the defendant) estopped the case from being heard; the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit agreed and the USSC did not grant cert. The actual substance of the original dismissal (that the mark is offensive and scandalous) were never reviewed.

I'd bet this case had plaintiffs who were fairly young so that laches did not apply (laches is ordinarily tolled (suspended) for the period of minority, but I'm sure this will be an issue).

[Guinevere]

Link to the decision below-- it is rather long and I still have not had the time to read it, but one of the interesting bits as I skimmed was expert testimony on lexicon and a list of dictionary definitions of "redskin" dating back to the 1890s, and testimony that around the middle sixties, there term redskin started to be referenced as offensive, disparaging, and/or derogatory.
http://ttabvue.uspto.gov/ttabvue/v?pno ... AN&eno=199

[Sue U]

The historical use of the term "redskin," regardless of whether or not intended as derogatory, is of the least significance. The use and meaning of words changes over time, and just because something was once acceptable doesn't make it so today; every generation has the right to determine its own lexicon. When I was a child in the early '60s, I remember my elderly relatives in Maryland commonly referring to black people as "colored," since in their time and place identifying someone as "black" was almost as offensive as calling him a "nigger." (Around that time, I think, "Negro" may have also been socially acceptable in some circumstances.) As I recall, it wasn't until the Black Power movement of the later 1960s that the connotations and conventions really changed.

But regardless of whether you call your team Redskins or Braves or Indians, it's simply no longer acceptable to use an ethnic stereotype as a mascot and marketing tool.

[Big RR]

Sue--in the case of trademarks, the office sees the prior use as important because it can bear on whether an innocent use is disparaging, or a disparaging ceases to be so (see pp 20-24 of the opinion). so, for example, a use which could well be disparaging may acquire on its own a secondary meaning apart from the disparaging one to permit it registration. I am not familiar with the cases cited, but the office does allow for the use of the mark itself to be taken into account, as well as its meaning at the time the application for the mark was filed. For example, suppose someone were to object to Cleveland's use of the mark Browns as being disparaging to those with brown (or black skin); evidence that the majority public does not see it that way (especially if it was a term considered to be disparaging at the outset) could show that the use of the term transcended the disparagement and became intricately associated with the good or services provided. French connection UK (which uses the mark FCUK) could probably rely on this sort of analysis to avoid cancellation.

[Crackpot]

Sue tell that to Notre dame.

[Guinevere]

That's the point Sue, the question is whether the name was derogatory at the time the mark was issued, and there are 6 (I think) marks being contested issued from the 60s through 90s. The evidence cited by the Plaintiffs' expert made it clear the name is precisely one where the meaning and intent has changed over time.

[Lord Jim]

In reviewing the latest comments here, I'm really not interested in getting back into this; we're pretty much going 'round in circles at this point...

However, I would point this out:

For the second time in 15 years, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has cancelled the federal trademark of the Washington Redskins on grounds that the team name is disparaging to Native Americans. Through its Trademark Trial and Appeal Court, the USPTO first cancelled the trademark in 1999, but the decision was overturned by a federal court on appeal in 2003.[It was subsequently appealed to the Supreme Court, and they refused to take the case, letting the lower court decision stand]The Redskins are likely to appeal this new cancellation as well and would retain federal trademark protection pending appeal. An appeal could take years to play out.

Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/nfl/ne ... z35CowmwJU

So despite all the media hype and misinformation over this, the fact of the matter is the Redskins franchise continues to enjoy full trademark protection, and no matter how this ultimately plays out, will continue to do so for a number of years...