Discussion: The Fight Over The Redskins Trademark Is Only Just Beginning

TPM Article Topics
1

Discussion for article #224087

2

Personally, I want them to change the name to the Washington Rednecks…just to see how quickly Hannity, O’Reilly and FOXnutz’ News have a collective hate-gasm . Sweet sh*ts & giggles a plenty!

3 Likes
3

I can understand the anger over the Redskins’ name and logo. But why does the Cleveland Indians’ mascot continue to fly (comparatively) under the radar? If there were an anti-Native American equivalent of Der Sturmer, it would have created Chief Wahoo.

5 Likes
4

On “At Midnight” last night, a suggested new name was the “Washington Red Shirts”, and you replace the Indian with a Star Trek Classic logo. That would work, given how badly the 'skins have been killed by the competition over the last 10 years or so…

1 Like
5

I didn’t think I was hoping for a death blow. I was hoping for the owner to join the 21’st century voluntarily. But sports franchises have an economics all their own: more rich man’s plaything than standalone business. Dude’s indignant backlash against common courtesy, apparently means more to him than the lawyers’ fees he’s wasting or the 100,000 new jerseys he could be selling.

1 Like
6

The biggest challenge in today’s Washington DC, is coming up with a distinctive, non-disparaging replacement name. Washington Lobbyists? No. Grifters, Parasites, Hypocrites, Gasbags, Derelicts, Reprobates, “Leaders” in scare quotes? No.

The best I can come up with is the Washington Monuments. They could all run around with little obelisks on their helmets.

1 Like
7

I see your point. Somehow “Indian” is not regarded as derogatory, where “redskin” is. I can see the distinction but I think the less offensive “Indian” is getting something of a pass when it really should not. I don’t see any teams called the Asians or the Caucasians. It’s kinda weird when you think about it.

8

How about “The Washington Red Staters”. Their mascot can be a fat white guy with a slack jaw wearing a Palin 2016 truckers hat. At games he runs around on his feet and knuckles and launches t-shirts at the crowd out of one of those shirt launchers, but it’s made to look like an AR-15. Their motto can be “dON’t tREAD on US!!!”

Since those types of people obviously don’t care about being offended or made fun of, there’d be zero controversy to ever worry about.

Right?

1 Like
9

Seriously why are liberals even involved in this issue.

We have a few more pressing issues to deal with. How about focusing on turning out the vote this fall?

1 Like
10

I agree 100%. Have always hated the Cleveland logo. The Redskins logo is at least a handsome depiction, reminiscent of the image on the Buffalo Nickel.

11

The Cleveland Indians’ mascot may not be a prime target since he has been progressively nudged into the background (why he has not been totally retired is a bit of a mystery since even thought he is in many ways a silly cartoon - his image is about as grotesque & insulting as you could make it) -
The focus on the “Redskins” may be more intense & more bluntly & more simply matter-of-fact - because it is a “Name” - it is constantly present in every identification of the organization - it is there on television, on the radio, in print - it is everywhere - and there is no mistaking it - the name “Redskin” is a slur - in general conversation it is as much of a slur as “Gook”, “Chink”, “Kike”, “Spic”, “Wop”, “Frog”, “Dot-Head” and on and on .

1 Like
12

Although trademark protection exists for unregistered trademarks, that “Redskins” is not just unregiistered but unregistrable may mean that there’s no recourse under the Lanham Act:

"‘The Lanham Act protects unregistered marks to the same extent as
registered marks because trademark rights emanate from use and not merely registration.’ Duffy v. Charles Schwab & Co., Inc., 97 F. Supp. 2d 592, 598 (D.N.J. 2000). To put it another way, for a Section 43 action, registration is not a prerequisite. What is a prerequisite, however, is that the unregistered mark be a valid and protectable one. As to that issue, I think there is a difference between a mark that happens to be unregistered, and one that cannot be registered as a matter of law.

Can a mark that is unregistrable under Section 2 of the Lanham Act nevertheless support a cause of action under Section 43? I am persuaded that Section 2 declares certain marks to be unregistrable because they are inappropriate subjects for trademark protection. It follows that such unregistrable marks, not actionable as registered marks under Section 32, are not actionable under Section 43, either."

2 Likes
13

Can we please all refer to the DC team as the Washington R-words so as to avoid use of a derogatory slur. This should become standard editorial practice in progressive, or any minimally decent, media.

14

Actually, it isn’t the term “Indians” that’s offensive in the Cleveland team, it’s the logo. That logo is just…fucked. Google “Coon Chicken Inn” and compare them.

2 Likes
15

What’s the problem? Keep the name and paint a picture of a peanut on the helmets. Or design a potato-shaped helmet.

16

This is only three weeks ago. Very interesting.

17

Riussell_Frege brings up an interesting point, and one I’d been thinking about. If “redskins” is so offensive why does every newspaper and website (like this one) have no problem saying it? I keep hearing “Redskin” compared to the “N-word” a lot, but “N-word” isn’t actually the word is it? Leaving aside the linguistics hand waving and mental gymnastics that lets us think we say a word without saying a word, the “N-word” stands for “nigger”, a word most find so offensive no one puts it in print. Yet no one seems to have a problem with saying or printing “Redskins”, why is that?

Personally I think that it’s because “redskins” is not as “offensive” and the “N-word” and no one else really thinks that either (or not many at least). Not that it’s not “offensive” but there are degrees of offense that seem to be getting overlooked here.

1 Like
18

According to WaPo, the earlier case was never heard on its merits: it was tossed by the Court because the plaintiffs lacked standing. That’s very different from being heard and ruled against.

I’m not sure what has changed to give these plaintiffs standing, but this is clearly Round 2 of that fight. I assume that they addressed that issue.

19

Describing the overwhelming majority of politicians in Washington, DC:
The Washington Pinkskins, perfectly describing the prototypical pol: flushed-faced, white-haired, sanctimonious beyond description, one hand on the Bible, the other deep in the pocket of a1%-ish corporate backer.

Naming a football team after a skin color is not racist, according to such luminaries as Joe Walsh (on AM 970).

20

Redtails is good.

Blackhorses is better.