Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by Alupis | Hacker News Reader

Full thread

Alupis

For anyone not understanding what this is about, here's the most important part of the ruling:

> ...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.

View on HN

Probably not. The test for disparagement has two elements: 1) whether the mark singles out an identifiable group; and 2) whether a substantial composite of the group would find the mark disparaging. That is to say, the mark doesn't just have to be offensive to someone somewhere, but rather it has to be perceived as disparaging by a substantial portion of the particular group singled out by the mark.

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.

Important to note, the ruling is based on whether or not the trademark was considered disparaging at the time of registration... not currently.

Yes, and the relevant time frame is between 1967 and 1990. There's a good article with details: http://www.businessinsider.com/us-patent-office-cancels-reds....

> "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.

> The USPTO canceled the registration then, but the decision was overturned on appeal for insufficient evidence of disparagement.

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.

Thanks. I vaguely remembered the case from trademarks class, but that was a few years ago. :)

NWA will then surely lose (any of) its trademark rights?

They don't appear to have any registered trademarks.

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.

Interestingly, the presumption appears to be positive in the statue absent the express carve out--which is essentially for "immorality" or "provocation".

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;...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1052*

I wonder if these name controversies will lead to team Insignia issues.
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

I only skimmed the ruling, but it sounds like this was not simply because they used American Indian imagery. It specifically discusses previous rulings along the lines of what you're suggesting, and explains why they chose not to cancel the trademark in that case, and why that precedent is not applicable in this case.
Long story short, this isn't about simply using ethnic imagery. It's about using an out-and-out racial slur.

But that's a wrong-headed assumption. "Red-skin" is not a per-se slur, its a translation of a french phrase, and that was apparently derived from orginal native american usage. The latter referred to "white men" and "black men". Nobody is arguing that the native americans object to the french term "peau-rouge" ? or are they? Just curious on the data.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/peau#Etymology

Cleveland has been de-emphasizing that logo recently. http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10270450/mlb-cleveland-ind...
As an Indians fan, I won't mind seeing it disappear completely. It's embarrassing.

Well if we are going to play the PC game with trademarks may I suggest we start heading down the road of renaming all public schools that offend people; actually we are in places; renaming towns with offensive name, removing offensive slogans some towns may have, and so on and so on. Indian style names are quite abundant across this country and I am sure even some we think as inoffensive can be found otherwise if we ask the right people.
In the name of fairness we might just result to numeric designations.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com