• Welcome to BGO! We know you will have questions as you become familiar with the software. Please take a moment to read our New BGO User Guide which will give you a great start. If you have questions, post them in the Feedback and Tech Support Forum, or feel free to message any available Staff Member.

Roger Goodell: Redskins Name Honors Native Americans

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shi no Tenshi said:
Part of it is because I am conscious of my phrasing on how to get people to pick my side on all of this sort of thing. I hate it when people will discount others over a piddly comment that has nothing to do with the argument. I see it too many times, even around here, where something like that can take away from a good point because someone decided picking nits was the best way to attack somebody.

I hate it, I just choose to work around it :p
Click to expand...
I agree. However, I choose not to worry about whether people pick my side or not, as evidenced by my posting style around here :laugh:

I learned a long time ago, people are stubborn and refuse to change far more often than not. So on a topic like this, people already have their minds made up, and I think what we say or do isn't going to sway an opinion to our side anyway :)
 
tr1 said:
Regardless of how anyone feels, the name change is coming.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true at all. The commissioner is basically echoing Snyder's position. That's not meaningless. There is a very small group of strident activists and media people calling for this 'outrage' to be addressed, but the vast majority of Americans and Native Americans (by any data we can currently find anyway) see it for what it is. I also believe that Americans are really tiring of the often ridiculous demands of the PC few. I think it's highly unlikely any legal entity is going to force the Redskins to change the name. And if they did, I doubt seriously it would stand up on appeal. I don't see a change as a foregone conclusion but I'd be interested why you are basing your emphatic declaration on?

You sound more like Eeyore every day brother. It can't rain every day of the year :)
 
tr1 said:
Regardless of how anyone feels, the name change is coming.
Click to expand...
You base this on what, exactly? Snyder owns the team, and he's not changing it. At least that's his position. Since the only person at all that even had any leverage to force a change was Goodell, who didn't really have the power to do anything, but could have made life a living hell, has come out and made this statement, it's obvious he's not going to do anything about it.

A recent trend I have noticed in this country the past few months, is that it finally seems like people are tired of the overly PC, pussifying of everything to avoid hurting feelings. It is so blatantly overdone that people are just sick of it. It started with the atheist group that I'm convinced only does their over the top stuff to be a-holes with their latest attempt at getting their way. I can't remember the state they tried to get their craziness going in lately, but a judge more or less told them to go **** themselves. As they should. Then this year for the first time in about a decade, both my kids schools were completely decked out in Christmas decorations, and my daughter's school even had a Christmas tree fully decorated in the main foyer. At stores, people were saying Merry Christmas instead of Happy Holidays. It's a trend that I've noticed is picking up steam the past few months, where people are just sick of having to cater to sensitive crybabies.

The only way this team will ever change its name is if the next owner is sensitive to the name. If he/she isn't, it will be when the next owner comes along that is sensitive to it. This Oneida guy has lost all credibility and momentum, and he was the driving force behind the thing to begin with.

I just don't see how there is any evidence for you to assert so surely that a name change is coming. There is literally zero evidence to support that stance.
 
I think the patent office denying "Redskin Pork Rinds" as offensive is a bigger deal than people are making it. It's precedent for the pending lawsuit. And if the trademark is overturned, Snyder will most definitely change the name.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I think the patent office denying "Redskin Pork Rinds" as offensive is a bigger deal than people are making it. It's precedent for the pending lawsuit. And if the trademark is overturned, Snyder will most definitely change the name.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's hard to say, because of a few things. For starters, I know I don't know much about how the rules work with these things, as most people probably don't, so there is a lot we don't know. On top of that, there is a lot more to the story than what we've been told. It's probably been made a bigger deal than it actually was, and the media ran with it on a slow news day, as they tend to do.

On a radio show here, they were talking to a patent attorney about it who claims (and I don't know the validity of his statements) that the only way a patent/trademark/etc. can be overturned or stripped, is as a result of the patent holder losing a reexamination proceeding. He said that the USPTO does not have legal authority to do so themselves, because that isn't part of their powers. They can certainly deny future use of the name in new products, but they can't just delete the patent. The attorney stated that to be brought to a reexamination hearing, the patent would have to interfere with a law, in which case the justice department would be filing the charges, or it would have to be a case brought by a patent holder of a very similar patent. If this is all true, there's no way the patent, license, trademark, etc. could ever be touched.

Also, one thing that was never made clear about the pork rinds story, is whether the name was being registered by Snyder, who is the lawful owner of "Redskins." It could be they refused the patent because it wasn't filed by Snyder or his company, and that the name had nothing at all to do with the team, or someone was illegally trying to use the team name. This is all stuff that I never heard mentioned in the story, so it's not as cut and dry as some people have made it out to be.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I think the patent office denying "Redskin Pork Rinds" as offensive is a bigger deal than people are making it. It's precedent for the pending lawsuit. And if the trademark is overturned, Snyder will most definitely change the name.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

So...are you asserting that anyone on this board who uses the moniker Redskins or persists in doing so after a "PATENT" (that's laughable...if one examines what's in play) is favorably (in your view) settled...are racist?
 
fansince62 said:
So...are you asserting that anyone on this board who uses the moniker Redskins or persists in doing so after a "PATENT" (that's laughable...if one examines what's in play) is favorably (in your view) settled...are racist?
Click to expand...

Sorry, brain fart. Trademark, not patent.

As to the rest of your baiting and condescending post, no thank you.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
If folks like, it seems to me that the much wider, but germane conversation, is what Liberalism is all about. It is different from Progressivism. I see what is happening here (Redskin rename) in the sense of the aligned political interests as a backwater of Liberal politics that has been going on since at least the 1900s (i.e., for over 110 years). We can take this over to PA.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
Sorry, brain fart. Trademark, not patent.

As to the rest of your baiting and condescending post, no thank you.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

yea...right! the logic is clear. it's not baiting. deal with it. but I understand the response mechanism - we see it every day on a national scale.

done here. same old argument.
 
For clarification purposes, the issue is with the trademarking of the term Redskins, not patents.

Nobody said:
On a radio show here, they were talking to a patent attorney about it who claims (and I don't know the validity of his statements) that the only way a patent/trademark/etc. can be overturned or stripped, is as a result of the patent holder losing a reexamination proceeding. He said that the USPTO does not have legal authority to do so themselves, because that isn't part of their powers. They can certainly deny future use of the name in new products, but they can't just delete the patent. The attorney stated that to be brought to a reexamination hearing, the patent would have to interfere with a law, in which case the justice department would be filing the charges, or it would have to be a case brought by a patent holder of a very similar patent. If this is all true, there's no way the patent, license, trademark, etc. could ever be touched.
Click to expand...

There is a lawsuit requesting the office to review the trademark. It's schedule to be heard somewhere down the road. That is why this is such a big deal, at least in my opinion. The office has already ruled the word is offensive, prior to going into this case to hear whether they should review it or not. It'll be fought by lawyers, it's pointless to speculate what the outcome will be at this time. Who knows what technicality one side might get away with or not. But there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the idea that because the Washington Redskins have already been issued a trademark on the term Redskins that they're protected from ever having that trademark reexamined.


Nobody said:
Also, one thing that was never made clear about the pork rinds story, is whether the name was being registered by Snyder, who is the lawful owner of "Redskins." It could be they refused the patent because it wasn't filed by Snyder or his company, and that the name had nothing at all to do with the team, or someone was illegally trying to use the team name. This is all stuff that I never heard mentioned in the story, so it's not as cut and dry as some people have made it out to be.
Click to expand...

They specifically stated the reason for refusal was that the term Redskins is offensive. That is directly stated in their ruling.
 
I cannot subscribe to the idea that if Snyder loses the trademark rights he'll be ok with it and continue to use the name. He's owned the team for going on 15 years and at no point has he done anything to give me the idea that his decisions are not primarily driven by financial reasons. I'm not even sure there's more money to be made by changing the name, I actually think there's a good argument that there's much money to be lost by doing that. But I don't see the idea of anyone being able to print his logo and name and sell it, without giving him a piece of it, sitting well with Snyder.

That's certainly one thing I'd be happy to be wrong about.
 
There's no chance we keep the name if Snyder loses the trademark. Less than zero percent. It's not only his revenues, there are league revenues to consider as well. Even if Snyder wanted to sick to his guns, the league would force his hand.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
I don't see there being any lost revenues. The reason I believe this, is because it can still be, and will be, sold as officially licensed NFL merchandise as opposed to some flukie selling knockoffs. There are plenty of imitations already widely available that people don't waste money on. Snyder not having the trademark isn't suddenly going to change the buying habits of people. They will still want the official NFL branded Redskins merchandise.

I doubt very seriously if they can pull a trademark, then expect the guy to just eat millions in inventory that was made when it was still trademarked. For that reason, I believe that if they were to pull the trademark, Snyder could sue for millions in product that will no longer be exclusive, and I could easily see him winning that lawsuit. And who would foot the bill for that?

My personal opinion is that the name and the trademark aren't going anywhere any time soon, if ever.

Edit: Something interesting I just stumbled upon. According to current patent and trademark laws, the following are the reasons listed that a patent or trademark can be revoked/cancelled/etc.

1. Geographic descriptiveness
2. Non use
3. Likelihood of confusion
4. Genericness
5. Fraud
6. Bad faith
7. Trade name use
8. Well known or famous mark

Judging by that, the trademark on the term Redskins can't even be twisted to fall into any of those categories. That tells me the law would have to be rewritten to legally revoke the trademark.
 
Last edited:
I see your point, but the only reason people don't buy the unofficial merchandise is because it's illegal to sell it. Now, it will be available everywhere (if the trademark is revoked). So, while there will still be some who want the official NFL logo, I think most people (or at least half) will opt for the exact same thing at half price without it at the grocery store/gas station/etc., especially in tough times.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
tshile said:
For clarification purposes, the issue is with the trademarking of the term Redskins, not patents.



There is a lawsuit requesting the office to review the trademark. It's schedule to be heard somewhere down the road. That is why this is such a big deal, at least in my opinion. The office has already ruled the word is offensive, prior to going into this case to hear whether they should review it or not. It'll be fought by lawyers, it's pointless to speculate what the outcome will be at this time. Who knows what technicality one side might get away with or not. But there is plenty of reason to be skeptical of the idea that because the Washington Redskins have already been issued a trademark on the term Redskins that they're protected from ever having that trademark reexamined.




They specifically stated the reason for refusal was that the term Redskins is offensive. That is directly stated in their ruling.
Click to expand...

what in the world is a trademark office doing arbitrating on what is "offensive"? that's what I was getting at. this is bogus. everyone knows it is bogus - it will end up...like so much that is PC these days...undermining the public trust and belief in institutions, under-cutting the support for the matters that actually are offensive/racist, and, quite possibly, inspiring a backlash.

the only people happy with this outcome will be those who can't make the argument in the first place. because of their intellectual limitations and questionable motives they have to seek recourse to the usual: a jury-rigged government process. it's laughable on so many planes.
 
Lanky Livingston said:
I see your point, but the only reason people don't buy the unofficial merchandise is because it's illegal to sell it. Now, it will be available everywhere (if the trademark is revoked). So, while there will still be some who want the official NFL logo, I think most people (or at least half) will opt for the exact same thing at half price without it at the grocery store/gas station/etc., especially in tough times.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

cool by me! that just means Snyder doesn't corner all the loot. or, the various REDSKINS stores at FEDEX, the mall, etc., etc., will be forced to become more competitive, feature more innovation.

so, without a trademark, will anyone be able to mint a uniform with any player's name on it? not possible to differentiate in ways that have legal enforcement powers? not possible for Snyder to continue selling "official" uniforms of the WASHINGTON REDSKINS?

the real test in all of this will be principle. if Snyder caves...the losses will be on multiple planes. either way, they will continue to play Hail to the Redskins at games. I hope the fans continue to sing it. and thereby make a mockery of the whole decision process.
 
Good question. In the past at FedEx, I've seen roughly 5-10% of people wearing knock-off jerseys. I would think if the trademark is revoked, the only difference would be the NFL shield. Interesting point about the player's names though...I don't know.

Sent from my XT1060 using Tapatalk
 
fansince62 said:
what in the world is a trademark office doing arbitrating on what is "offensive"? that's what I was getting at. this is bogus. everyone knows it is bogus - it will end up...like so much that is PC these days...undermining the public trust and belief in institutions, under-cutting the support for the matters that actually are offensive/racist, and, quite possibly, inspiring a backlash.

the only people happy with this outcome will be those who can't make the argument in the first place. because of their intellectual limitations and questionable motives they have to seek recourse to the usual: a jury-rigged government process. it's laughable on so many planes.
Click to expand...

You're not allowed to trademark offensive/derogatory/racist terms. It's part of the rules, that's why they make decisions about it.
 
tshile said:
You're not allowed to trademark offensive/derogatory/racist terms. It's part of the rules, that's why they make decisions about it.
Click to expand...
But it was deemed offensive 82 years after the fact. You'd think that has to carry some weight to it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Total: 1, Members: 0, Guests: 1)

Help Users
As we enjoy today's conversations, let's remember our dear friends 'Docsandy', Sandy Zier-Teitler, and 'Posse Lover', Michael Huffman, who would dearly love to be here with us today! We love and miss you guys ❤

You haven't joined any rooms.

    You haven't joined any rooms.
    Top