Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Washington Redskins Stripped of Trademarks

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the i'm-sure-this-will-pass-without-debate dept.

Government 646

BillCable writes: Politico reports, "In a major blow to the Washington Redskins, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office on Wednesday canceled six federal trademarks of the 'Washington Redskins' team name because it was found to be 'disparaging' to Native Americans. 'We decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that these registrations must be canceled because they were disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times they were registered,' the PTO's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board wrote. The panel voted 2-1 in favor of the decision." Perhaps this move will speed up the inevitable name change, which was expected within the next few years."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Chicago Blackhawks too? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265805)

-nt

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (5, Funny)

mythosaz (572040) | about 4 months ago | (#47265835)

Catholics to complain about Cardinals next.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 4 months ago | (#47266249)

For those who modded parent "insightful" instead of "funny" - Cardinals = "birds".

(seriously - I had to explain that?)

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (2)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 4 months ago | (#47265851)

Braves?
On a legitimate note, who would choose a derogatory name for themselves? I notice that Corporate entity "ProductsThatSuckAndArentVacuums" is still available.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265955)

The team was originally the Boston Braves.

should rename them the "Donald Sterlings" (5, Funny)

Thud457 (234763) | about 4 months ago | (#47266069)

At least they removed the "Boston" slur.

Not sure if "Atlanta" is any better.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (5, Informative)

machineghost (622031) | about 4 months ago | (#47266205)

Braves, Indians, etc. are not as offensive as Redskins (and obviously Cardinals doesn't even enter the picture). Brave or Indian means "Native American, the way your ancestors would have referred to them". Redskin means "top of scalp taken from a dead Native American to be turned in for a bounty to the US government (which paid for the murder of Native American men, women and children)".

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1)

NatasRevol (731260) | about 4 months ago | (#47265857)

Braves & Indians too.

But don't worry, the actual revocation won't happen until all appeals are complete.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 4 months ago | (#47265915)

Chief Wahoo is pretty insulting.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (2)

rudy_wayne (414635) | about 4 months ago | (#47266097)

Chief Wahoo is pretty insulting.

That's your opinion.

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with Chief Wahoo and the name Redskins. So what make you right and me wrong? And that's the problem here. There is no such thing as a wrong opinion. With all the problems we have in this society, it is absurd that THIS is what people are upset about.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265925)

Was calling someone a "brave" considered derogatory? Same with "Blackhawks." Black Hawk was a chief of the Sauk tribe. I doubt he found his name "derogatory." Maybe we aren't reading the summary where it specifically says the problem is the name was deragatory when the trademark was granted. Neither brave nor Blackhawks are considered derogatory.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266187)

Neither brave nor Blackhawks are considered derogatory.

I disagree. So what makes your opinion more valid than mine?

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1)

tchdab1 (164848) | about 4 months ago | (#47265951)

...and the tomahawk chop is both insulting and insanely annoying.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265973)

So a little while ago I felt like I had a great big healthy shit coming on. I mean it makes sense. I have been adding more fiber to my diet lately. So I sat on my white porcelain throne and then ... *unghhnhhghhghh* *PLOP* Ah. Wow that was a big one. Damn it this is a big, wide, long log. It'll probably fold in half and get stuck and clog the fucking toilet. Again. Ah well. I will deal with that if and when it happens.

It was such a wide turd-log with such girth though. Amazing that my otherwise virgin asshole can expand that wide. Hmm that could be a problem. So I start to wipe. Damn it this could take a while. I got feces smeared on the sides of my ass cheeks from the girth of that turd. I wipe some more and ... oh no. I feel something knotty. Yup, what I feared from this turd has come to pass. I have lots of hairs around my asshole. I suppose most men do. Nature's way of saying "I love you! But not that much."

There it is. I can feel it through the single ply paper. A great big DINGLEBERRY. Naturally I try to awkwardly grab it with a folded sheet of toilet paper and dislodge it. I pull. Ouch. I pull harder. OUCH. Wow during its brief passage past the asshair, this turd-let really securely managed to get caught on some ass hairs. I can't just pull the dingleberry out without ripping the hairs right out. I have no idea if that caries the possibility of breaking the fecal encrusted skin and leading to an infection or what, but I know it would hurt so I want other options. I try gathering lots of sheets of toilet paper. I repeatedly wipe the same area over and over, hoping to wear this fucker down. I manage to whittle it down a little but this is taking far too much time. This turd is really determined to stay in its new home!

I can't very well pull my underpants back up now, that would get them all shitty and smelly. If I wanted to smell bad all the time I would let myself get fat. Maybe some water will help. I awkwardly reach for the faucet, turning it to a slow stream, and wet some toilet paper, making a mental note to disinfect the faucet handle later. I can't see the damned thing but judging from the brown stains appearing on the sheets of toilet paper, I am at least making progress. Now my hands are wet and shitty smelling and I am thinking this better be worth it. I use a dry sheet to feel for the dingleberry again. It did shrink but it's still there, dangling from my ass hairs, mocking me. WTF have I been eating lately to produce such a persistent turd? Nature does abhor a vacuum, which is why lots of gas has entered my bowels where the big turd-log recently was. I enjoy a nice after-defecating loud fart while I wonder what to do next. I chuckle because when the fart is your own, you don't think it stinks but you know somebody else would evacuate the area. Ok time to stop laughing, this is a serious predicament.

I toy with the idea of getting some scissors or something to try and cut the dingleberry out. Then I consider this is a sensitive area, I cannot see what I am doing, and it's too close for comfort to my cock and balls to be wielding a bladed item. I am starting to get angry. I am starting to not care anymore about the consequences of just yanking the damned thing out. I tried the easier ways and they failed. Fuck it, I have places to be and things to do. I can't very well spend all day in the bathroom playing a not-so-fun game with a turd. I double up on toilet paper and get a good secure grip on the dingleberry. Okay fucker, you're going DOWN. *YANK* Yeouch, fuck that hurt as much as I thought it would. And there it is, in my hand, nestled in the folds of toilet paper: my dingleberry! Ha ha ha, you won the battle, dingleberry, but I just won the war! I rub my sore ass cheek. Then I ceremoniously plop that fucker in the toilet bowl, to briefly swim with his big brother log. Oh man, you never heard such a satisfying flushing sound in your life. I rub some aftershave around my ass hairs just to make sure, better to smell funny than to get some kind of infected pimples or something.

I was careful. But not careful enough. Never careful enough. It was no trivial task to scrub the fecal matter completely off my hands and especialy, from under my fingernails. I find it useful to use a bar of soap and dig my nails in it. Repeatedly. I think all the turd particles are gone now. If I eat with my hands and get sick later I will at least know why, but it hopefully will be okay. Man. What an ordeal. Anyone who ever fought against a dingleberry knows how persistently they can cling to life next to your asshole.

So I watch this mixture of feces and paper swirl around the flushing toilet bowl. Sure enough, the very middle of the log gets sucked toward the drain. Not good, not good. It folds in half and the two halves at once is too wide to fit through the toilet. Great. Now my toilet is clogged. But the water continues to rise. Oh man, this doesn't look good. Quick, where the fuck did I put my plunger?!

... the saga continues ...

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1, Informative)

UnknowingFool (672806) | about 4 months ago | (#47265927)

I'm not sure that's in the same league as Redskin. The Blackhawks were name after a Sauk chief. Redskin has been a derogatory term for Native Americans.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266137)

I'm not sure that's in the same league as Redskin. The Blackhawks were name after a Sauk chief. Redskin has been a derogatory term for Native Americans.

What about Red Mesa High School [maxpreps.com] ?

Yep, Red Mesa High School calls themselves the Redskins.

It's on a Navajo reservation.

Kinda blows up that "derogatory" claim, doesn't that?

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266245)

Kinda blows up that "derogatory" claim, doesn't that?

If that were true, "nigger" would no longer be considered derogatory.

Remember, it's only derogatory when used by someone outside the group it is derogatory towards. When used inside said group, it's fine.

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (4, Interesting)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47265971)

The Blackhawks are named after an Army unit, which was named after a guy. There have been protests over the logo, but the name isn't particularly offensive to anyone. There is virtually no chance that any other major team name would be found "disparaging".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Hawk_(Sauk_leader)

Re:Chicago Blackhawks too? (1)

nitehawk214 (222219) | about 4 months ago | (#47266171)

And Vancouver Canucks. But they are describing themselves.. so many not.

Everything is on schedule (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265843)

Everything is on schedule. Snyder will change the name..."reluctantly". And in exchange for a free new stadium.

Submit (0)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about 4 months ago | (#47265853)

Or else.

Re:Submit or else (1)

MRe_nl (306212) | about 4 months ago | (#47266159)

So much like the Native Americans?

My two cents (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265855)

As much as they should change their names, should the USPTO allowed to cancel trademarks which they don't like? What about free speech?

Re:My two cents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265897)

They can still call themselves whatever they like. They just don't get to prevent others from doing the same.
Hardly a free speech issue.

Re:My two cents (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | about 4 months ago | (#47266095)

Hardly a free speech issue.

Specifically a free speech issue, in a way that "money is speech" doesn't even come close to.

A department of the US government has denied equal protection to an entity incorporated in the US on the basis of the political implications of what they want to say. Short of "free speech zones", you don't get a much more solid 1st amendment issue.

And they have history on their side - They won on appeal for exactly that reason last time. And they will win again this time.

Personally, I consider this whole issue much ado about nothing - The indians lost to the white demons; if a sports team wants to name themselves after history's losers, hey, their call.

Re:My two cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266175)

A department of the US government has denied equal protection to an entity incorporated in the US on the basis of the political implications of what they want to say. Short of "free speech zones", you don't get a much more solid 1st amendment issue.

Trademarks are free speech issues. But I do see what you're saying, and I agree.

Re:My two cents (4, Interesting)

rlwhite (219604) | about 4 months ago | (#47266241)

White Demons. I'd like to see that as a team name and logo.

so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (2)

swschrad (312009) | about 4 months ago | (#47265911)

not all speech is free. you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box. incendiary or hateful speech is prohibited by any number of state and local ordinances, and various equal rights legislations. fact is, and you can ask multiple schools about their athletic departments, the native American population has had enough, as other people of color have, and they are using all challenges possible to douse the loaded stereotypes. the Washington NFL team has got to change, and the screws are tightening under their thumbs.

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47265933)

you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box.

really? al jazera is on time warner ;)

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266115)

you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box.

really? al jazera (sic) is on time warner ;)

What makes al Jazeera The Jihad Channel?

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (1)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47266181)

note the winky face...it was a joke because the main station, not aljazera america was sympathetic to the Taliban

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (2)

sjames (1099) | about 4 months ago | (#47266223)

Al Jazera has nothing to do with jihadists. In fact, they offer a welcome fresh perspective.

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47266233)

I just addressed that very fact, It was a simple joke. I thought the winky face made that clear. It is in fact better than MSNBC and FOX (i dont even count CNN these days) thats for sure

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266067)

haha, this comment is great. :)

I knew that sooner or later, the tired squeal from social justice warriors about how it's not the GOVERNMENT silencing people and getting them fired would prove to be a sycophantic excuse, easily abandoned when the government did start appealing to them by taking actions they liked. All of you dumb fucks that constantly post the xkcd comic of that fat sperging retard - wake the fuck up! The government IS doing it now.

I love that there was zero awareness of it, too. People getting fired, ho hum, that's the market, free speech just means the government can shut you up. I knew ... KNEW that when it started happening in Washington that it would be waved away by dumb fucks like this one. :)

 

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266075)

Really? CNN has been airing ISIS's film clips...

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (1)

Hevel-Varik (2700923) | about 4 months ago | (#47266105)

This is just so that you can erase speech that you don't like. So that you can control what people do. All must conform to the good and true. They have had that name since 1933. But now it's on the heresy list of the modern clergy, so the Government will work within its ever growing means to do away with it, with the support of true believers like you. Because it's obviously the proper role of Government to fight against heresy and thought crime, right? Because it isn't legal to yell fire in a theater, you see. This will not end well.

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266179)

Go fuck yourself you feminist cunt.

Marry little girls.

You say girls not brides?
Then coffins not cunts. - Kill feminists.

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (1)

ilparatzo (3627897) | about 4 months ago | (#47266197)

"incendiary or hateful speech is prohibited by any number of state and local ordinances"

So then why are KKK members allowed to have marches down streets and publish papers that most would consider "hateful speech"? I had no idea that I could be arrested for walking up to a Native American and using a racial slur and stating I was happy for what happened to their people in the past.

If this is true, why aren't we arresting all of those rappers who sing about killing cops and beating up women? All of these prohibitions you speak of, who is using them to stop all of this hateful and incendiary speech that is out there?

There are laws that restrict speech which can be deemed a direct threat, or the "yelling fire in the theater" sort of stuff. Those are a far cry from incendiary or hateful speech. Prohibitions of "hateful" speech are routinely overturned because of the right to "free speech".

Re:so shout "fire" in a crowded theater (1)

jeIlomizer (3670951) | about 4 months ago | (#47266217)

so shout "fire" in a crowded theater

That court decision led to war protestors being arrested, and was a 'creative' interpretation of the first amendment. Or rather, it was a modification.

Furthermore, even if I look at it from the perspective of someone who supports such a restriction on free speech, the two situations aren't even remotely the same. Some say one puts people in clear and immediate danger, while the other merely offends people. Big difference. Colossal, in fact.

not all speech is free.

The first amendment makes no such distinctions. I suggest reading it. The fact is, the government is attempting to punish people because they find their speech offensive. I don't agree with trademarks, but I don't think they should be arbitrarily taking them away for certain people.

you won't find The Jihad Channel on your local cable box.

If that's not allowed, then it is indeed a free speech issue. Next.

Re:My two cents (5, Insightful)

squiggleslash (241428) | about 4 months ago | (#47265919)

There's no free speech issue here. The Redskins can call themselves whatever they want. What they can't do, necessarily, is count upon the full force of government to help them out if they want to prevent other people from using the same term in connection with their business, if they choose to use a particular category of name, as they are doing.

It's just a Trademark. That's all.

Re:My two cents (5, Insightful)

Hevel-Varik (2700923) | about 4 months ago | (#47266157)

This the Government using its ever increasing means to enforce thought crime. Heresy. Name has been around since 1933. This a means to an end and the end isn't trademark law and you know it. It's a bunch of assholes in a office using the trademark authority of the United States of America to enforce against heresy. You are just spouting talking points.

Re:My two cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265967)

This is America 2014. Any rights you have are at the will of the government's discretion.

Re:My two cents (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47266011)

All rights you have are always subject to the will of the government. That's why it's so important to have a constitution where those rights are specifically laid out, and why it's so important for citizens to participate in civic discourse and not just expect the thing to run itself.

Re:My two cents (5, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47265969)

Trademarks are a constitutionally permitted infringement on free speech. Refusing to alllow a trademark can't possibly infringe on free speech: it does the exact opposite.

Re:My two cents (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265993)

Because it is intolerant to be tolerant of intolerance. That is why we must be as intolerant as we can be in order to be tolerant. That's something Republicans just can't comprehend.

Re:My two cents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266001)

I always giggle when I hear the word Free Speech. The only TV channels I know which censure (bleep) are the Anglo-Saxon nations. The cognitive dissonance is amazing. Watch the nitpicking defenders crawl out of the woods, it is inevitable and hilarious.

Also, money is speech. LOL.

Corporations are people, my friend. ROTFLMAO.

America is funny.

Not so fast ... (5, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about 4 months ago | (#47265863)

From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to federal court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didnâ(TM)t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time.

That took 10 years

Re:Not so fast ... (1)

synapse7 (1075571) | about 4 months ago | (#47265905)

What about all the baseball teams with Native American names, I thought one of the teams was going further to "embrace" the tribal name, but I forget the details...

Re:Not so fast ... (1)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 months ago | (#47265953)

From Washington Post: Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999.

I heard discussion on the radio today, that while the 1999 action went one way, that there has been a change in public perception and that doesn't mean it will go the same way again this time.

Of course I was also listening to a talk radio guy who was claiming that this case is all about the government in Washington deliberately creating a mini-crisis in order to deflect public attention away from the real issues in DC. Seriously.

Re:Not so fast ... (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#47265987)

Exactly. Just because they won an appeal to the trademark office doesn't mean that the Redskins can't win on appeal on an entirely different basis, which is precisely what they did 15 years ago. They may change the name, or they may not. In the end, it's just politics and sportsball to me, both of which I make a point of avoiding the details of on a day-to-day basis.

Re:Not so fast ... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47266017)

The plaintiffs in the current case say they're immune to the issue raised by the appellate court in the previous case. We will see if that's true.

Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265867)

Nobody has a right to be un-offended.

If these idiot judges can di that, then next thing you know they will be saying we are not allowed to say anything negative about Islam. and have no doubt, that is exactly where this is headed.

I hope somebody tar and feathers these judges.

Re:Free Speech (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265943)

Nobody has said the team isn't allowed to use the marks. That would certainly violate the First Amendment.
They just can't sue anybody else for using them.

Re:Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265945)

No one said they couldn't name themselves whatever they wanted. All that was said was that the government won't help them prevent others from using that name.

Re:Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265957)

Why? The judges didn't say they had to change the name only that the term can't be trademarked. That's not a 1st Amendment issue. The 1st Amendment grants freedom of speech not freedom to trademark.

Re:Free Speech (2, Interesting)

0xdeadbeef (28836) | about 4 months ago | (#47265965)

Nobody has a right to be un-offended.

And no one has a right to trademark a racial slur. No one is stopping them from continuing to use the name, and now they can't stop anyone else from using it also.

So why are you so mad about it? Freedom has increased, yet you're the one offended.

Re:Free Speech (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47266045)

This is not a free speech issue. You are allowed to say and write "redskin" anywhere you wish. You just can't trademark it.

It's amazing how many rabid free speech advocates on this site have no clue about what free speech actually is. I'm going to assume that most of them are in 9th grade.

Re:Free Speech (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266071)

You can say anything you want, just don't expect the federal government to grant and enforce a trademark for your Auschwitz Kikes baseball team.

REDSKINS JERSEYS FOR SALE -- CHEAP!!! (3, Funny)

Motard (1553251) | about 4 months ago | (#47265873)

Get 'em while they're hot. Official (looking) Redskin Jerseys.

We will also make complete Redskins uniforms for you little league team.

Call Q.T. Industries - Beijing.

A slight tweak and... (2)

jongalbreath (1621157) | about 4 months ago | (#47265875)

They just need to become the Washington Redskin Potatoes. Problem solved, and with a little butter and some salt, you've got a hearty side dish.

Re:A slight tweak and... (1)

Ralph Wiggam (22354) | about 4 months ago | (#47266059)

I said that they should become the Potato Skins. They could still use the "skins" nickname. And everyone loves potato skins.

First Amendment implications? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265877)

If it were a "positive" trademark instead of "disparaging", it'd be allowed?

Seems a clear-cut violation of free speech rights to me.

And no, you do NOT have a right to not be offended.

Re:First Amendment implications? (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | about 4 months ago | (#47266051)

How is the government refusing to enforce a restriction on free speech rights (which is what a trademark is) an infringement on free speech rights? 'splain, please.

Re:First Amendment implications? (1)

Mike Buddha (10734) | about 4 months ago | (#47266131)

Freedom of speech! Freedom of speech! I don't know what it means, but I'll bitch about it on the internets, yup!

I just dont get it (3, Insightful)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47265885)

Liberals are always talking about live and let live. they get all upset when people dont respect their lifestyle. but at the same time they attack those who they disagree with

I am of native descent. The onodaga tribe in NY is where I live. Not one person here that I know is offended by the name the redskins. We are more offended by the liberal white man pretending to be offended in our name. I am sure there are other natives who disagree with me but what happened to live and let live. If you dont like it, root for the other team! simple as that! I am more offended as a native by the cowboys (americas team) and the yankees than I am the redskins or braves

Re:I just dont get it (1)

rokstar (865523) | about 4 months ago | (#47265909)

I would suggest you look at the plaintiffs in the case before you start arguing that these were 'liberal white men' pretending to be offended.

Re:I just dont get it (4, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47265963)

I would suggest you look at the people behind the token natives being pranced up there. A few of them are from where I live and guess what, they are not in good standing in the area any longer because they are being paid to pretend to be outraged right now.

Re:I just dont get it (1)

rokstar (865523) | about 4 months ago | (#47266083)

Okay I will. Who are the people behind it them? There isn't a monetary pay out for this so it can't be trail lawyers. I'm not getting any luck with the google-fu.

Re:I just dont get it (4, Interesting)

ganjadude (952775) | about 4 months ago | (#47266125)

we are trying to figure out the money trail now, But we can tell you that as soon as they started being quoted and going on TV they all of a sudden had all sorts of new clothes, a new car, and no reason that they should have been able to afford it. There are 2 people in my area so far that this has happened with, and the rest of us are not happy

Re:I just dont get it (1)

rokstar (865523) | about 4 months ago | (#47266199)

Not saying I don't believe you but i'm not seeing what the upside would be for whatever group doing this. If as you say it was 'liberals white guys' you'd think that they would be all out there making sure they get the public adulation so they can feel all warm and fuzzy on the inside. Or I suppose it could be someone is out to try and destroy the team for rivalry reasons except the owner Dan Snyder is doing a pretty good job of destroying the team all by his lonesome.

Re:I just dont get it (2)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 4 months ago | (#47266237)

Ah, a no true Scotsman Fallacy. Grats.

fuck you mods (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266005)

What assclown decided that this should be flaimbait?? standing up as a native american and giving his opinion that is different than the going political correctness... fucking pathetic

Re:I just dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266025)

Liberals are always talking about live and let live. they get all upset when people dont respect their lifestyle. but at the same time they attack those who they disagree with

How do you know Kuhlke's, Cataldo's and Bergsman's political opinions?

Re:I just dont get it (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266117)

> liberal white man

don't blame the whites for the jewish p.c. (an extension of the kosher shakedown) police.

Re:I just dont get it (0)

cyberspittle (519754) | about 4 months ago | (#47266247)

Hey ganjadude, Where is team called NY Onodaga? Sorry, don't be offended, but ganjadude sounds like name of white man trying to be cool (when he is not). Like dad wearing sons clothes.

There's more than one way to "skin" this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265887)

If you don't do it by a overarching law, you can create pressure by making the business lose a lot of money.

I guess the billionaire owner of the Redskins isn't part of the oligarchy that runs america:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/apr/21/americas-oligarchy-not-democracy-or-republic-unive/

new name (1)

roc97007 (608802) | about 4 months ago | (#47265889)

I vote for the Washington Inoffensives. But I thought the Bullets should be renamed the Fluffy Bunnies. Nobody pays attention to me.

Re:new name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266243)

Washington Senators, that name is not in use.

News for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265913)

TMZ/ESPN stories obviously matters to those American nerds and geeks to be featured here, your Kernel driver debugging will have to wait.

Re:News for nerds (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47265983)

This is yet another internet libertarian flamebait site with a touch of technology.

No more worry about being counterfieted (1)

cyberspittle (519754) | about 4 months ago | (#47265923)

Counterfeited is now an option. Personally, I think a name change like Virginia Moonshiners would be cool.

Re:No more worry about being counterfieted (1)

seepho (1959226) | about 4 months ago | (#47265999)

Dollars to donuts that by the start of the 2015 season we'll have the Washington Warriors. Same logo, same colors, just a different name.

Re:No more worry about being counterfieted (1)

cyberspittle (519754) | about 4 months ago | (#47266225)

That would be a good name. The double double-you. Whoa. WW. Looks hot. My other thought was the Washington Rednecks. If there was a jersey, I would buy it. That would be my team. Ha ha ha.

Fuck the PTO (1)

greenwow (3635575) | about 4 months ago | (#47265949)

federal government we have today, expect more of these racist sort of things to continue. Their kind loves to fuck over people by, for example, encouraging the use of racists terms like they did in this manner.

Prepare For Blowback (1)

organgtool (966989) | about 4 months ago | (#47266013)

May I suggest the new name to be the Washington Indians? Their mascot could be a man from India in a business suit wearing a Native American headdress.

Big fuss over nothing (3, Insightful)

reboot246 (623534) | about 4 months ago | (#47266021)

I'm part "Native American", enough to join the tribe if I wanted. But I refuse to be associated with a people who are so thin-skinned that they get offended at the drop of a hat. Yes, "redskin" WAS a term of derision, but it's been turned into a better word, a word to be proud of, a word of honor.

If we have to change the name of the Washington Redskins, I say we change all the names of things in this country that have native origins. Just think of how many states, cities, counties, rivers, mountains and such have native-derived names. Fuck it! Change ALL of them!

not technology news... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266023)

i do not give a fuck.

This has happened before and overturned by appeal (1)

ProfBooty (172603) | about 4 months ago | (#47266027)

This is not the first time this has occured. Last time, the federal circuit overturned the PTAB's decision as they had determined that the plantiff's had waited too long before filing as the Redskin's trademark had been around for years.

I would presume that the NFL would wind up making a similiar argument during an appeal as this trademark has existed for years.

What's next? Big Chief tablets? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266029)

Bye-bye Braves too. Jeez.

Would the "progressives" be ok with multi-ethnic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266039)

How about the red, yellow, white, black and multi-hues of brown skins? Seriously people, will somebody shutdown the extreme PC idiocy that has infested our society?

New Mascot (1)

kwiecmmm (1527631) | about 4 months ago | (#47266089)

In order to eliminate the trademark infringement the team should just change their mascot to be a redskin potato.

(I stole this from elsewhere but I thought it was funny)

'Redskin' is about body paint, not skin color (1, Informative)

schwit1 (797399) | about 4 months ago | (#47266111)

http://www.warpaths2peacepipes... [warpaths2peacepipes.com]

Protection: Paint was commonly used to protected the skin from insects, the sun, the wind and the cold. Red ochre was in plentiful supply so this was the most common application, hence the term 'Redskins'

Washington Potatoes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266113)

They should just replace the picture of an indian with a picture of potatoe skins, died red.

Of course, I don't think it will make the Native American's happy, but it should negate the legal issue.

Washington Pi's (1)

tommeke100 (755660) | about 4 months ago | (#47266119)

Apparently the PTO did not mind trademarking the symbol for Pi, so maybe they should call themselves the Washington Pi's from now on.

Which Law States... (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 4 months ago | (#47266133)

That patents must not disparage? A lot of patented work is far more cut a dry disparaging others than this.
Also when they were filed obviously they were not meant to disparage. There were/are a baseball team, and a baseball team would not call themselves a disparaging name.

Do the Michigan State Spartans disparage Spartans? Not really.
So a team named the redskins does not disparage native americans.

Ridiculous (2)

pouar (2629833) | about 4 months ago | (#47266143)

If the name Redskins was "disparaging". They wouldn't be naming their team after them

IANAL, but (1)

kick6 (1081615) | about 4 months ago | (#47266151)

I just read what I think is the law, and I can't find a section that says a mark is cancellable because it's 'disparaging." What am I missing?

I propose a new name (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266169)

The Washington Lysol® Drinkers.

Trademark office are completely incompetent (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#47266211)

I've dealt with them before and their moron lawyers. A bunch of fucking fagots run that entity. I'd say the only more corrupt entity int he government is the IRS.

Fuck the trademark office.

Something is wrong with these reintepretations... (4, Interesting)

mi (197448) | about 4 months ago | (#47266235)

No laws have changed, but what was once perfectly acceptable — indeed, a registered trademark — no longer is. And the other way around.

"Redskins" are just a name, but there are worse signs of the changes... For example, University of Hawaii recently prohibited a student group to hand-out copies of the Constitution [moonbattery.com] . The administrators' reasoning was: "This isn’t really the ’60s anymore" and "people can’t really protest like that anymore".

Obviously, the First Amendment has not changed in 50 years, it is just being reinterpreted. And so is the understanding of "disparaging".

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?