• 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.

Redskins Attorney Statement Regarding Trademark Denial

Boone

The Commissioner
Staff member
BGO Ownership Group
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
49,235
Reaction score
7,131
Points
2,244
Location
Greensboro, NC
Military Branch
Marine Corps
Alma Mater
Virginia
PRESS RELEASE

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.
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.”
 
so, what money has changed hands in the past 20 years to make that ruling null and void?
 
If they give in to the idiocy, they won't get to choose a name that makes any reference to Original Americans. They will need approval.

In what ****ing world does anyone think "Warriors" will be acceptable to 100% of Original's?
 
Whether or not the appeal is successful, the name game agenda will still exist.

There is too much negative info-pressure for it to fizzle out. The 'don't mess with the name group' has no where near the media footage afforded to the other group which, for now, is claiming a battle victory.

I googled Native American Redskins Fans, trying to find their Facebook link, take a look at what shows.
Top of the page, at least today is about the 'win' of a trademark defeat.

Like many others here, I'd like to see solid unbiased research data relevant to this issue. Unfortunately, when dealing with emotional sensitivities, this type of data is awfully hard to come by.

However, if the appeal is successful then it's at least another chit for the good guys.
 
If they give in to the idiocy, they won't get to choose a name that makes any reference to Original Americans. They will need approval.

In what ****ing world does anyone think "Warriors" will be acceptable to 100% of Original's?

In the world of taking up 'causes' for the sake feeling like you're doing something meaningful.

Warriors has already been contested by the Native Americans and is well documented. Anyone demanding the name be changed and suggesting that as an alternative is arguing in bad faith and hasn't put in any time into actually researching the issue.

In other words they don't actually care, they just don't realize it.
 
Twenty years ago, sodomy laws weren't unconstitutional. Today, they are.

Civil unions began in Vermont in 2000.

Open carry has increased in the last 20 years.

Time causes change...even DS has prepared for a name change. He's got a lock on 'Warriors'.

Forget the legality, the PR of the obstinacy position is a loser.

The heat will be on the NFL from now on...and we know how 'resolute' those guys are.

Except supporters of the name aren't arguing that the word can not be used as a slur. They're arguing that it has other meanings as well, as many words do. Taking offense to the team name and the organizations use of it, as well as its fans, is a choice made by those 'offended'.


A fact those demanding the name change can't get past so they ignore it and attempt various rationales to get around it. Like yours.

To me it's the only fact that matters. There's ample proof of the word being used as a source of pride and honor, and the team name being based off of that usage.
 
I'm lending more credence to the idea that this is a direct challenge to America's resolve; that this is an attempt to force agendas that aren't valid or even legal, testing the waters for more aggressive and less benign measures.

Remember, just because you're paranoid, don't mean they're not after you!
 
Like many others here, I'd like to see solid unbiased research data relevant to this issue. Unfortunately, when dealing with emotional sensitivities, this type of data is awfully hard to come by.

I'll go again to my standby: A Linguist's Alternative History of 'Redskin' And that was in the WaPo! We know which side they come down on. So the contrary opinion of the subject's is about as unbiased as I've seen.

And from personal experience, I've never heard that term used as an epithet. Ever. And I've been around a while.

So..... who wants to go to a Washington Oklahomans' game?
 
Last edited:
You think I want the name change? :rotflmao:

I'm just making the point that it's coming.

Each of these little endorsements and legal challenges feeds public perception. PR beats rationality regularly in the real world.

I'm tired of it being the first topic whenever I tell folks I'm a Redskins fan.

And, ultimately having to defend Dan Snyder, who deserves so little from us fans for the torture he's made us endure for so long.

Dan Snyder is the problem.

Whether you want the name changed or not is your opinion to broadcast, not mine. Your arguments and regular posts follow along the same 'logical' and 'rational' lines of thought as those demanding the name change - which is what I was pointing out.

Your relation of defending the team name to defending Snyder is likewise yours to make; Snyder didn't pick the name nor did he pick the logo. He didn't pick the context, and he certainly didn't determine the multiple meanings of the word. His only stake in the issue is that he currently is majority owner of the team. You do not have to defend Snyder in any way to defend the team name.

Snyder is the problem in that, like many things, he's terrible at understanding where he actually sits in the issue and assumes his money and army of lawyers will trump all else.

The problem is the willingness of many people in this country to constantly let the loudest win the argument, regardless of said argument's merits. We see it time and time again in political issues, which is what this has obviously become.

On a personal note - If you don't want to be lumped into those demanding the name change and fighting on behalf of Righteousness and Fairness, I suggest you give their arguments more objective thought instead of parroting them on a Redskins board. It doesn't bother me where you actually stand on the issue - I've moved past trying to be reasonable and logical on the name debate as I've grown tired of the arbiters of righteousness and fairness being biased and not giving the supporters' arguments due credit. But if you're concerned you're being falsely lumped in with them then that would be my suggestion.
 
I just saw a "joke" on Facebook that said "Will they have to change the San Diego Padres now because of church and state separation?"


While it was tongue and cheek I can see that being something we all laugh as frivolous yet becomes an issue.
 
I just saw a "joke" on Facebook that said "Will they have to change the San Diego Padres now because of church and state separation?"


While it was tongue and cheek I can see that being something we all laugh as frivolous yet becomes an issue.

It's an opening.

Once you give in to the Church of Political Correctness and Apologies, they'll attempt to take a marathon for every inch you give.

Nick
 
Let me ask this: OK...say they change the name. When 90,000 still show up in Redskins gear and sing "Hail to the Redskins" after every score..on live TV...then what?

Will the Feds start arresting fans?
 
I'd suggest you carefully read my posts and not read things into them.

My 'beef' is with how Snyder has ham-handed another issue once again. He's made the name change inevitable. It didn't have to be this way. This would have gone away as it did a decade or so ago had Snyder no been 'In-your-face' about it.

He's a dick. And, it's easy to hate a dick for any reason.

I may be reading into your posts too much or remembering wrong. If so - my bad ;)

I get not liking Snyder. And if it changes there are many missteps to point to.

I view the issue as much more of a cultural one in our country than one of Snyder's doing.

The Golden State Warriors have been called out on 'Warriors'?

Golden State Warriors are thinking about a name change - CBSSports.com

Maybe you need to do some research...?

No it was someone else, a university I believe... I'll have to look it up later.

The Warriors is not an option if you want to keep ties to team history and not wind up back in the same place in 30 years; given how willy nilly we throw around its "... two thousand and whatever year, how does this still exist?!?!"

They'd have to do something creative yet simultaneously ambiguous (I like the Washington burgundy and gold to be honest) or cut ties from that part of the past all together. Pick and animal or something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

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