Those filing the complaint were found to be too old. The court ruled that they should have filed upon reaching the age of majority. Those filing the new case are younger.
On another note, the White Privilege Conference is in violation of the USPO's rules. So is UNCF, NAACP, etc etc.
This is a pretty simplistic reading of the rules.
It's with out question, the issue at hand is the contempt one group has over the use of a word by another group and is seeking government sanction as a result. It may be overly simplistic but at its core, its about someone trying stop another person from using a word. Unless you are being naive, this is what this issue is all about.
Dispute filed in 2006 to trademarks filed anywhere from the 70's to 1990.
The last one was dismissed on standing.
Right. What created the lack of standing?
On another note, the White Privilege Conference is in violation of the USPO's rules. So is UNCF, NAACP, etc etc.
You have to be able to protect organizations such as the NAACP from sinister but yet legally correct claims. I think using the current standard does way more harm than good. It gives a legal mechanism for a bully pulpit from all kinds of perspectives.
Okay, but that's not what's happening here. There's a set standard for what words can be trademarks, it has nothing to do with whether the patent office likes or dislikes them. Everyone seems to agree, yourself included, that the term "redskins" was, at the very least, derogatory at the time when the initial trademark was filed.
Because I agree the term is derogatory does not mean I agree it should be rejected for trademark. On another note why did it take them anywhere from 16-20 years to file a dispute?
Is a registered trademark that many white people find offensive. My guess this is a not a valid reason to recind the trademark.
Quote from Tiax »
That's a good guess, because the rule isn't "you can't trademark anything that anyone finds offensive".
In its 2-1 ruling issued on Wednesday, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, an independent tribunal within the USPTO, wrote that it was charged with determining only whether the trademark was offensive to the people it referenced, not the entire U.S. population. Five Native Americans, representing four tribes, brought the case against the league in 2006.
You probably accept a lot of limits to your behaviour and to the behaviour of others without even thinking about it or maybe even consider it good
I do not nessciarly think laws are about good and bad but rather whats pracitcal for society to exist. This Redskin deal is just the natrual evolution of political correctness. Instead of just trying to win public support in order to compell someone to not use an unpopular word, they've resorted to taking legal action to force them to not use it or signficatly burdening them from using it. How many liberals would be offended by a name such as "anti-liberal policy insitute". I think it becomes a problem when government starts harming people or buisnesses for subjective things such as offensiveness.
Quote from Tiax »
The government has the power to say what is a valid trademark
I do not disagree they have the power to do it. I do not think they should have this power.
No, the use of the team name cannot violate the rules, because the rules are about trademarks. The only thing that violates the rules is registering it as a trademark, not the actual use of the name.
The actual use of the name is what the government has a problem with or would be no need to revoke the trademark protection its has. What kind of convoluted argument are you trying to make? Use of that name, trademark, word is offensive so it can not longer be legally protected.
The only one to blame for the burden is the Redskins organization.
So its okay for the government to place a burden on speech?
Had the chosen a valid trademark as their name...
I guess you have no problem the government saying what is valid speech/expression do you?
Quote from wiki »
A trademark, trade mark, or trade-mark[1] is a recognizable sign, design or expression which identifies products or services of a particular source from those of others
The exercise of the speech didn't violate anything.
It violated the trademark rules.
And that's all that's been revoked - the right to use the name remains.
As I've expressed, this sounds reasonable at face value. However, there is a very real burden being placed upon companies who no longer have legal remedies to protect their brand. You act like this burden does not have an impact to their ability to use the brand they created. Maybe limiting free speech is the wrong way to put it, maybe its better to say it places an undue burden on free speech.
Further, you know as well as I do, the entire purpose of this government act is to force the Redskins to not use an offensive word. It is a very real attack on speech.
The reason they are taking it away is because it violates the rules, and violated the rules when it was applied for. It's that simple.
You mean excerising free speech in an unpopular way violated the rules and should not be allowed and not be protected? I agree, that is what is happening. They are taking away federal protection becaue it's offensive.
The patent office can refuse a trademark because they dont like it. Federal protection on speech in commerical endeavors is not equal. I point to the term "redneck" that is trademarked and the rejection of "*****" with an a.
But not incorrect.
It's with out question, the issue at hand is the contempt one group has over the use of a word by another group and is seeking government sanction as a result. It may be overly simplistic but at its core, its about someone trying stop another person from using a word. Unless you are being naive, this is what this issue is all about.
Right. What created the lack of standing?
On another note, the White Privilege Conference is in violation of the USPO's rules. So is UNCF, NAACP, etc etc.
You have to be able to protect organizations such as the NAACP from sinister but yet legally correct claims. I think using the current standard does way more harm than good. It gives a legal mechanism for a bully pulpit from all kinds of perspectives.
Do not call them tire irons all too often either.
Yes.
Dispute filed in 2006 to trademarks filed anywhere from the 70's to 1990.
Because I agree the term is derogatory does not mean I agree it should be rejected for trademark. On another note why did it take them anywhere from 16-20 years to file a dispute?
EDIT: I object to restricting trademarks based on words the USPO likes or dislikes.
Power to limit the kind of trademarks based on offendeness, sorry was not clear. Not surprising this was not obvious to some.
Although I do have some objections to trademarks, patents and such.
I do not nessciarly think laws are about good and bad but rather whats pracitcal for society to exist. This Redskin deal is just the natrual evolution of political correctness. Instead of just trying to win public support in order to compell someone to not use an unpopular word, they've resorted to taking legal action to force them to not use it or signficatly burdening them from using it. How many liberals would be offended by a name such as "anti-liberal policy insitute". I think it becomes a problem when government starts harming people or buisnesses for subjective things such as offensiveness.
I do not disagree they have the power to do it. I do not think they should have this power.
Is a registered trademark that many white people find offensive. My guess this is a not a valid reason to recind the trademark.
The actual use of the name is what the government has a problem with or would be no need to revoke the trademark protection its has. What kind of convoluted argument are you trying to make? Use of that name, trademark, word is offensive so it can not longer be legally protected.
So its okay for the government to place a burden on speech?
I guess you have no problem the government saying what is valid speech/expression do you?
It violated the trademark rules.
As I've expressed, this sounds reasonable at face value. However, there is a very real burden being placed upon companies who no longer have legal remedies to protect their brand. You act like this burden does not have an impact to their ability to use the brand they created. Maybe limiting free speech is the wrong way to put it, maybe its better to say it places an undue burden on free speech.
Further, you know as well as I do, the entire purpose of this government act is to force the Redskins to not use an offensive word. It is a very real attack on speech.
You mean excerising free speech in an unpopular way violated the rules and should not be allowed and not be protected? I agree, that is what is happening. They are taking away federal protection becaue it's offensive.
The patent office can refuse a trademark because they dont like it. Federal protection on speech in commerical endeavors is not equal. I point to the term "redneck" that is trademarked and the rejection of "*****" with an a.