U.S. Patent Office Cancels Trademark For Redskins Football Team
ttabvue.uspto.gov
ttabvue.uspto.gov
>
> ...we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that
> these registrations must be cancelled because they were
> disparaging to Native Americans at the respective times
> they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a)
> of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
>
Seems like this ruling may lead to more... there are a lot of trademarks in the US that some party somewhere will take offense to.
A good example of this is "Dykes on Bikes," a trademark that was allowed after evidence showing that lesbians did not find the term disparaging: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dykes_on_Bikes#Legal_battle_to_... ("The court found that men had no grounds to be offended by the term. McDermott stated his opposition against any group associated with the annual Dyke March, which he dubbed 'the Annual Illegal San Francisco Dyke Hate Riot' in which he and all men are subject to criminal attacks and civil right violations.")
In this particular case, although many native americans do not mind the term, a sizable portion find it to be akin to the n-word for african americans. Indeed, in the early 1990's a native american group brought cancellation proceedings for the trademark: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Washington_Redskins_name_contro.... The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.
> "The record establishes that, at a minimum, approximately thirty percent of Native Americans found the term REDSKINS used in connection with respondent’s services to be disparaging at all times including 1967, 1972, 1974, 1978 and 1990.
That was the initial reason, but later appeals threw out the claim based on an earlier threshold issue, that the claims were barred by laches. The present case is a fairly direct follow-on with younger plaintiffs specifically to negate the laches defense.
There have been several attempts to register marks with "nigger", "nigga", "niggaz", and similar, but they all seem to have been abandoned [1]. Most of these were for things related to music (e.g., music production companies) or for clothing.
[1] One exception. There is an application for "Figgas over Niggas" that is still on track.
U.S. Code › Title 15 › Chapter 22 › Subchapter I › § 1052 15 U.S. Code § 1052 - Trademarks registrable on principal register; concurrent registration
No trademark by which the goods of the applicant may be distinguished from the goods of others shall be refused registration on the principal register on account of its nature unless it—
(a) Consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute;...
The team's name was based on a derogatory term, but their logo depicted a native american man that was drawn semi realistic.
The Cleveland Indians literally use a cartoon caricature a Native American with red skin and a questionable facial expression: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cleveland_Indians_logo.svg
Long story short, this isn't about simply using ethnic imagery. It's about using an out-and-out racial slur.
As an Indians fan, I won't mind seeing it disappear completely. It's embarrassing.
In the name of fairness we might just result to numeric designations.
If I was the Apache Foundation, I would be looking for another name.
'"Redskin" is a term for Native Americans. Its connotations are a subject of debate,[1] although the term is defined in current dictionaries of American English as "usually offensive",[2] "disparaging",[3][4] "insulting",[5] and "taboo." [6]'
And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.
So, while its nice that you read the named plaintiffs, it would probably help if you read the document beyond the names of the parties to get a clear understanding of what is actually going on.
http://www.ncai.org/attachments/LegalBriefing_TByaxkdqYwYRDo...
Note that the first two listed are:
Amicus National Congress of American Indians ("NCAI") was established in 1944 and is the oldest and largest national intertribal organization; it represents over 250 tribes, nations, pueblos, and Alaska Native villages with a combined enrollment of over 1.2 million.
Amici Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma, Comanche Nation of Oklahoma, Oneida Indian Tribe of Wisconsin, and Seminole Nation of Oklahoma are federally recognized Indian tribes that have adopted resolutions condemning the use of Indian names and mascots by sports teams.
Oh, excuse me, all of those are failures of government and we cannot acknowledge that.
I mean, one of the organized groups that started protesting and lobbying against these sports uses the earliest was AIM [1], who, whatever else one might say, certainly cannot fairly be described as not interested in addressing "failures of government" affecting Native Americans.
AIM's history of involvement on this issue was among the pieces of evidence cited in the decision supporting the conclusion of fact that the marks at issue were disparaging to a substantial composite of Native Americans at the time registered.
> I'm not sure AIM is even a going concern these days after everything that the FBI did to them.
There clearly less active now than in the past, e.g., their most recent press release on their website is October 22, 2013 -- concerning the very issue here, interestingly enough.
They never had the website, and they can't get it back. And being the name of a group isn't the basis for the legal decision here, so that part is irrelevant, too.
> And I take a bit of an offense at you telling me or my Dad what you think Redskin means versus what he grew up with and myself growing up on a reservation with the slang "skins" being used often and not in anyway like your dictionary definition probably written by someone who had never set foot on a reservation.
The petitioners for cancellation of the trademarks in this case (and the previous one on the same marks) were all Native Americans, enrolled in tribes -- I'm not sure if anyone of them lived on reservations or not, but that's irrelevant to the legal standard anyhow. Further, the evidence presented in the case, and the legal standard, address whether the terms were disparaging to a substantial composite of the referenced group (Native Americans), not to some group irrelevant to that.
That doesn't mean that all Native Americans have to view the mark as disparaging for it to be cancelled, but it certainly does mean that the decision is not about whether other people, who aren't Native Americans, think the term is disparaging to Native Americans.
edit:
http://www.npr.org/2014/06/12/321392824/the-ad-campaign-to-t...
The image really is pretty bad.
That isn't to say it's not offensive -- but I don't think promotion of inflammatory false information is constructive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/10...
A variation of "Red-skin" also appears in the French Language (something there is no data to support Native Americans would have objected to, presumably). Again, this is neither here nor there in that french speaking canadiens would have been in contact with all manner of native americans, including those among which 'scalping' took place (in terms of geographic an time period overlap etc).
editL
Just a cut-n-paste but might be helpful for some folks to baseline:
Redskin...had not emerged first in English or any European language. The English term, in fact, derived from Native American phrases involving the color red in combination with terms for flesh, skin, and man. These phrases were part of a racial vocabulary that Indians often used to designate themselves in opposition to others whom they (like the Europeans) called black, white, and so on.
But the language into which those terms for Indians were first translated <was French>. The tribes among whom the proto forms of redskin first appeared lived in the area of the upper Mississippi River called Illinois country. Their extensive contact with French-speaking colonists, before the French pulled out of North America, led to these phrases being translated, in the 1760s, more or less literally as peau-rouge and only then into English as redskin. It bears mentioning that many such translators were mixed-blood Indians.
So the original term in the west was "peau-rouge" and this can be see in various french-language citations if needed--including news reports. How and why this was used as slang in English is another question all together, and how or why it ended up as a mascot (like braves, warriors, spartans etc) another question again.
The point of the ruling was a significant portions of Native Americans found "redskins" to be derogatory at the time the team chose the name all the way to today. I think people arguing today that "redskins" is offensive is based on the fact that a significant portion of Native Americans do think it is offensive today and not based on etymology alone.
Oddly enough, one of the owners of the redskins was a racist. The washington redskins were the last team to integrate and their foundation was specifically forbidden to donate money towards integration causes. However, I think their team name was picked by the original owner, who named them the Boston Braves like the baseball team (now Atlanta Braves) who wanted the team to be like the New York Giants football/baseball (now S.F. Giants), but Boston fans were confused and they changed the name.
(2) 1/3 is an arbitrary number. The threshold for materiality is only 5% generally speaking.
(3) The whole analysis is clearly an ex post facto rationalization of a pre-conceived policy outcome
(4) This is a terribly way to make law
(5) Cloaking it in "data analysis" is a joke...see 1-4.
I assume we are only after sports teams because its easy to guilt the owners. Please have Cleveland get rid of their mascot
Cleveland's name is based on reference to the nickname for Joe Louis: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleveland_Browns and the original owner wanted to name it after the coach Paul Brown.
If the Apache group of tribes claimed that the word "Apache" was offensive, and managed to convince the USPTO that that was the case, maybe they could get the trademark rescinded, but that wouldn't mean they would get it for themselves, nor would it even mean the ASF would have to stop using the name, much less give up their website, only that they would no longer be able to sue other people for using it as well.
And bear in mind that trademark law does not aim to be a unique name registry. The trademark is issued in the context of the business. For example, the USPTO has trademarks registered for Apache helicopters and Apache skateboards, among others.
Those looking to "make a statement" can probably find the next lawsuit in that arena.
The cancellation of the Redskins' trademarks will not have an immediate impact. They will appeal, and be allowed to continue exclusively using the trademark in the meantime. But should the cancellation stand up, there will be nothing on the federal level to stop random schmoes from selling Redskins gear, with logos and all.
One could imagine this having the perverse result of the team becoming more popular temporarily as now there is a bunch of cheap merchandise. I don't think it will come to that but it is slightly more likely than it was yesterday.
Other styles and imagery will continue to be trademarked, will it not? For instance, you won't be able to sell a jersey with someone's number on it.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_vault/2014/06/17/interactive_...
Thinking of colonizers...
South Africa had much more land for the conquered, even during apartheid.
Israel has set aside massive amounts of land to its previous inhabitants.
Canada certainly has much more land set aside, though I expect it's equally marginal.
More generally...
Japan-SK
Japan-Taiwan
UK-India
Overall it seems rare for conquerers to commit a genocide and set aside marginal lands for the previous inhabitants. Usually it makes more economic sense to take the existing population and use political violence to extract labor and resources out of them.
So much for the trademarks office being a non-political office - https://www.facebook.com/LiveFootballChat/posts/101523093022...
edit: want to add i am totally in favor of renaming the team. it would be cool to keep the spirit..perhaps the "native americans"?
"Native American" isn't the accepted term so much as one of the more commonly accepted terms.
> considering some of the treatment by Americans of the past and the fact they didn't name their land "America".
Since Native Americans don't share a single pre-colonization language or name for the land, its not really surprising that one of the more broadly accepted blanket terms in English for the group is one that includes the name of the land in the English and a reference to Native Americans historical precedence in the land.
I understand why the term exists, I just don't understand its usage.