Redskins lose Trademark Registration
-
Old, there's already a Warriors, Chiefs and Braves.
And feigning out rage is a great way to get attention and attention is the goal.
WSS
Old, there's already a Warriors, Chiefs and Braves.
And feigning out rage is a great way to get attention and attention is the goal.
WSS
When Donald Trump-this takes off his Mexicutioner hat, I'm sure he'd love to give this some attention once he's done giving McCain some attention.
Just wait until his central intelligence informs him that ISIS isn't just some intramural splat ball team.
Stay tuned...
-
Here is a link to article:
http://cle.247sports.com/Bolt/BREAKING-Court-rules-against-Redskins-38106585
Let this be noted: they are losing their right to trademark registration, NOT their right to the trademarks themselves.
They can continue to use the Redskin name and the logos they have been using. Nothing stops them from doing that.
What they likely lose is the right to trademark protections. In other words, basically, they can use all these images they want, but cannot win a lawsuit for trademark infringement against someone else who would want to use the name/symbols.
But, the question: who else would want to use this name and symbols for profit? Under free speech rules these symbols were always free to be satirized and criticised.
Maybe the one thing they lose is the right to ask for an injunction against someone that is making knockoff gear....but that is all to be fleshed out.
Let me just preface this with I'm not prejudice - I hate everyone. Somehow - some way, while I was learning about Pocahontas in grade school - I had this Pokeahotness interrupting and threatening my cooties stage membership. I wonder what she thinks of the current events in Washington while her former daughter turned son is now feeling like a different version of half breed.
-
I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that:
Brave
This is a word that has been used to refer to
Indian men. Used in millions of books, and
as a name for many sports teams, people are
often surprized to find that it offends Indian
people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble
courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on
Indian men long ago by early europeans. It
also dehumanizes and equates the Indian
male to something less than human. Adult
Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:
Chief
This is a word that is commonly given as a
nickname which incorrectly labels Indian
men. The cultural equivelant would be to
nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.
The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian
leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,
or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.
Native leaders were highly disrespected by
the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',
is just a way to continue that disrespect...The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:
Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The school’s president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."
Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).
I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that:
Brave
This is a word that has been used to refer to
Indian men. Used in millions of books, and
as a name for many sports teams, people are
often surprized to find that it offends Indian
people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble
courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on
Indian men long ago by early europeans. It
also dehumanizes and equates the Indian
male to something less than human. Adult
Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....
Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:
Chief
This is a word that is commonly given as a
nickname which incorrectly labels Indian
men. The cultural equivelant would be to
nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.
The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian
leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,
or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.
Native leaders were highly disrespected by
the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',
is just a way to continue that disrespect...
The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:
Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The schools president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."
Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).
Exactly. People think "oh let's just give up on the Redskins thing then everything will be hunky dory." Uh no, then you'll just get the push to change something else.
Just because people aren't offended by something now doesn't mean they won't be later. I can't wait til they come after Wahoo and everyone on this thread is like "but....but...I supported you on the Redskins thing!! I thought we were friends!!" Lol
-
No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves.
That's why those names are stupid names.
WSS
-
And I guaran-fucking-tee you guys that if they beat the Washington team into the ground enforcing name change they will not be happy. And I'm assuming the Cleveland Indians be the next target.
These idiots are addicted to outrage.
WSS
-
No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves.
That's why those names are stupid names.
WSS
No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves.
That's why those names are stupid names.
WSS
I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.
-
No as you should have been able to tell there is already a Golden State Warriors Kansas City Chiefs and Atlanta fucking Braves.
That's why those names are stupid names.
WSS
I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.
Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it?I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.
WSS
www.westsidesteve.com www.myspace.com/westsidestevemusic www.cdbaby.com/artist/westsidestevesimmons -
I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that:
Brave
This is a word that has been used to refer to
Indian men. Used in millions of books, and
as a name for many sports teams, people are
often surprized to find that it offends Indian
people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble
courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on
Indian men long ago by early europeans. It
also dehumanizes and equates the Indian
male to something less than human. Adult
Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:
Chief
This is a word that is commonly given as a
nickname which incorrectly labels Indian
men. The cultural equivelant would be to
nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.
The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian
leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,
or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.
Native leaders were highly disrespected by
the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',
is just a way to continue that disrespect...The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:
Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The school’s president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."
Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).
I thought maybe the "Braves" would be acceptable but some find offense to that:
Brave
This is a word that has been used to refer to
Indian men. Used in millions of books, and
as a name for many sports teams, people are
often surprized to find that it offends Indian
people. But it does! It plays on the 'noble
courageous savage' ideal that was pinned on
Indian men long ago by early europeans. It
also dehumanizes and equates the Indian
male to something less than human. Adult
Indian males are men, NOT 'braves'....
Then I checked into Chiefs or Chieftain and that too was found to be offensive:
Chief
This is a word that is commonly given as a
nickname which incorrectly labels Indian
men. The cultural equivelant would be to
nickname all white men 'Prez' or 'King'.
The term 'chief' itself is incorrect. Indian
leaders were never 'chiefs', but headmen,
or clan mothers, and so on. Not 'chiefs'.
Native leaders were highly disrespected by
the USA. So calling someone 'Chief',
is just a way to continue that disrespect...
I basically disagree with this as it applies to the generic term itself. A "Chief" can be any one in a Position of Authority. Jimmy Olsen called Perry White "Chief". As noted, Israeli Tribes had Chiefs....as did African Tribes.
And what song is played when the President of the United States comes into the Room? Hail to the Chief. He is the Commander in Chief.
I guess if you call a Native American a Chief....or use that term to apply to Native Americans (the Kansas City Chiefs do)...then perhaps it is demeaning....but, generically...no.
The university of Marquette used to be the Warriors but that is offensive as well:
Marquette University changed their team name from the Warriors to the Golden Eagles in 1994. The school’s president stated:"We live in a different era than when the Warriors nickname was selected in 1954. The perspective of time has shown us that our actions, intended or not, can offend others. We must not knowingly act in a way that others will believe, based on their experience, to be an attack on their dignity as fellow human beings."
What if they wore the uniforms of the Roman Legion.....who were Warriors?
Maybe Ghandi is the answer but he is kind of skinny (weight challenged).
-
Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it?I have no idea what this means or who it's directed at.
WSS
Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it?
WSS
Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved).
-
Well don't worry it wasn't directed at you. Think about it. Somebody suggested three alternative names for the Washington Redskins. I said those were stupid names. Somebody else defended them. Then I said that's why they were stupid names because they already exist in professional sports. Got it?
WSS
Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved).
Understand....though I said that two of them could certainly have different applications (not that they do in the case of the actual teams involved).
Well you're my attorney and I want to open up a string of hamburger joints and call them Mack Donalds, are we cool? I'm going to put mayonnaise and chutney on mine. Different application?
WSS
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login