#1 U.S. Trademark Office Says ‘Redskins’ is Derogatory by Cincinnatus 09.01.2014 16:57

avatar

Zitat
WASHINGTON (CBSDC/AP) — There will be no trademark for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” a bad omen for the Washington Redskins in the legal battle over their name.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected a request from a company to sell pork rinds using the word “Redskins” because it deemed the term to be “derogatory slang.”

In a letter dated Dec. 29, the agency wrote: “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark REDSKINS HOG RINDS consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

The same agency is deliberating whether to revoke the trademark protection for the NFL team, part of a long-running challenge from a group of Native Americans. A hearing was held in March, and a decision is expected soon.

Oneida Indian Nation Representative Ray Halbritter, who has been the most vocal opponent of the team’s name, is hoping the forthcoming ruling will be fortuitous.

“The USPTO ruling sends a powerful message to Washington team owner Dan Snyder and the NFL that in the name of basic decency and respect they should immediately stop spending millions of dollars to promote the R-word,” said Halbritter. “This is a huge potential precedent-setter rooted in the painfully self-evident truth that the Change the Mascot campaign has been reiterating: The R-word is a dictionary defined slur designed to demean and dehumanize an entire group of people. The federal government was right to declare that taxpayers cannot and should not subsidize the promotion of that slur through lucrative patent protections.”



http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014/01/0...e-legal-battle/

The fortunes of the Washington Redskins concern me less, much less, than what this ruling says about the power of a government agency in regard to free speech, and the subservience of the Obama administration to the PC crowd. The word "Redskin" is not profane, merely offensive to a certain segment of the populace; who, if they disapprove of its use, don't have to purchase the product and should try to persuade others not to do so either. Instead we get the steel fist of government telling us what we can and cannot say.

#2 RE: U.S. Trademark Office Says ‘Redskins’ is Derogatory by ThirstyMan 09.01.2014 19:11

avatar

I argued under the comments section under the CBS article with some lunatic "progressive" that the use of Redskin in this context was an honor, NOT meant as derogatory, racist and hateful. He wanted to refer to it as the "R-word"

But I think an excellent case can be made that these idiots are once again twisting the language to mean a very shallow understanding of the term racist.

The term Redskin used for a football team can ONLY mean a tribute to the courage, bravery and valiant spirit of the Indian warriors.

If not, then why'd it end up on a football team's helmet?

#3 RE: U.S. Trademark Office Says ‘Redskins’ is Derogatory by Rev 09.01.2014 19:20

avatar

Zitat
The fortunes of the Washington Redskins concern me less, much less, than what this ruling says about the power of a government agency in regard to free speech, and the subservience of the Obama administration to the PC crowd. The word "Redskin" is not profane, merely offensive to a certain segment of the populace; who, if they disapprove of its use, don't have to purchase the product and should try to persuade others not to do so either. Instead we get the steel fist of government telling us what we can and cannot say.



There you go, right there.

Xobor Create your own Forum with Xobor