I'm starting to screen print Redskins tee-shirts, caps, jackets, coffee mugs, key-fobs, etc. The trademark has been canceled meaning anyone can use it for financial gain. It's no longer protected. Yee-Haw!
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Redskin's Trademark Cancelled
- Thread starter Bro. Curtis
- Start date
I'd like to change my screen name to Joe Gibbs.
It's actually the Senate Democrats. Fifty of them. And I'm guessing Obama is the guy who the federal patent office has to answer to. So Rush wouldn't be far off, would he ?
http://www.washingtonpost.com/sport...7e1a4c-e1f1-11e3-810f-764fe508b82d_story.html
For Immediate Release
June 18, 2014
STATEMENT BY BOB RASKOPF, TRADEMARK ATTORNEY
FOR THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS
LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. – The following is a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the
Washington Redskins, regarding today’s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:
“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, 2003
We 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.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/06...ng-with-obama-reid-in-trademark-ruling-126231
June 18, 2014
STATEMENT BY BOB RASKOPF, TRADEMARK ATTORNEY
FOR THE WASHINGTON REDSKINS
LOUDOUN COUNTY, Va. – The following is a statement by Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the
Washington Redskins, regarding today’s split decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board:
“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, 2003
We 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.
http://www.bizpacreview.com/2014/06...ng-with-obama-reid-in-trademark-ruling-126231
Possible New Names to honor of those trying to make them change their name:
The Washington Sharks
The Washington Politicians
The Washington Scoundrels
The Washington Swindlers
The Washington Pirates (I know…)
The Washington Electorate
The Washington Patent-Pendings
Rob
The Washington Sharks
The Washington Politicians
The Washington Scoundrels
The Washington Swindlers
The Washington Pirates (I know…)
The Washington Electorate
The Washington Patent-Pendings
Rob
Zaac
Well-Known Member
Yep, he'd be waaaaaaaaaay off. ANd not to mention that as the folks in the Redskins organization said, they expect this to get reversed just as it did the last time for the same reasons.
So there's no need for them to move anywhere or rename anything.
I haven't heard anyone say it, but I disagree with you that he'd be waaaaay off.
I agree they should not budge.
I agree they should not budge.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
Leave it to a liberal to disparage the image that was inspired by the profile of Crazy Horse, one of the greatest Native American leaders in history. You probably prefer your Native Americans in a white man's suit and tie, sitting in IBM's corporate corner office with a Harvard Business degree on the wall.
Not that it doesn't happen, nor that it shouldn't. But is that really their heritage? Is that how Native Americans, Hispanics, blacks, Asians want to be seen?
Homogenized, pasteurized, and "white-breaded"?
I wonder if Native Americans think Crazy Horse's image is "derogatory"??
I'd think not.
More likely so that they can sue these teams who insult and injure them. A quick settlement might get you a million. :thumbsup:
Redskins should sue. It'd doubtful the patent office has the right to change the standards for discrimination without making their case in court.
Oooh, let me try:
The Washington Kickbacks
The Washington Pork Barrels
The Washington Graft
The Washington Bureaucrats
The Washington Interns
The Washington Gridlock
The Washington Deficits
The Washington PACs
Zaac
Well-Known Member
You for got both the Washington Bureaucrats and the Washington Pointy-Heads. Or maybe the Red Tape.
thisnumbersdisconnected
New Member
I vote with Snyder ...
"There is no way we're changing the name ... "
"There is no way we're changing the name ... "
It was noted in another forum that this decision might lead to a much wider proliferation of the "offensive" imagery. The Law of Unintended Consequences will never be repealed.
My vote is for "Gridlocks" - love the pun (and the truth therein.) And no issue with Pirates - the Giants and Cardinals each live in both leagues.
The Cleveland team had a member of the Penobscot Nation, Louis Sockalexis, play for them in the 1890s, when they were known as the Spiders. Some players on other teams began calling them "Indians" as an insult. Whether that's the origin of their current team name is debatable. Maybe it's like the Wesleys, who were dubbed "Methodists" by mockers of their evangelistic meetings, then chose to adopt the name for their movement.
Uh no its not. In fact it is an absurd suggestion.
Wiki agrees that it's not the source of the name, but the following excerpt from the Wiki site suggests that "absurd" might be an exaggeration:
With Lajoie gone, the Molly McGuires now needed a new nickname. Somers asked the local newspapers to come up with a new name, and based on their input, the team was renamed the Cleveland Indians.[20] Legend has it that the team honored Louis Sockalexis when it assumed its current name in 1915. Sockalexis, a Native American, had played in Cleveland 1897–99. Research indicates that this legend is mostly untrue, and that the new name was a play on the name of the Boston Braves, then known as the "Miracle Braves" after going from last place on July 4 to a sweep in the 1914 World Series. Proponents of the name acknowledged that the Cleveland Spiders of the National League had sometimes been informally called the "Indians" during Sockalexis' short career there, a fact which merely reinforced the new name