NationStates

Murkwood wrote:This is just the Obama admin overreaching yet again. This isn't what the patent office should be doing.

Jesus. Haven't you been peddling this shit since page 1? The Obama administration has fuck-all to do with this.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Geilinor wrote:The only way the Redskins could win the appeal would be to show that "redskin" isn't disparaging.

*sigh*

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Some information from Reuters (heavily elided) [now more heavily elided]:

So, they apparently don't have to appeal on merits, but statute of limitations. If they do in fact have a previous identical decision to point to, the case is over and they win.

Uh... last time it got turned down because the people who were fighting it were too old. It won't work this time because they got younger Native Americans who don't like it when people use racial slurs about them to bring it up.

Dakini wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:*sigh*


So, they apparently don't have to appeal on merits, but statute of limitations. If they do in fact have a previous identical decision to point to, the case is over and they win.

Uh... last time it got turned down because the people who were fighting it were too old. It won't work this time because they got younger Native Americans who don't like it when people use racial slurs about them to bring it up.

That makes sense. The people who petitioned to cancel the trademark last time were old enough to have challenged it in 1967 but waited for 30 years, while the current petitioners aren't old enough to have possibly done so.

Geilinor wrote:

Dakini wrote:Uh... last time it got turned down because the people who were fighting it were too old. It won't work this time because they got younger Native Americans who don't like it when people use racial slurs about them to bring it up.

That makes sense. The people who petitioned to cancel the trademark last time were old enough to have challenged it in 1967 but waited for 30 years, while the current petitioners aren't old enough to have possibly done so.

Ah, yeah, I didn't really understand why the age of the petitioners mattered (I just know that this is why it was turned down last time), but that does make sense.

Dakini wrote:

Geilinor wrote:That makes sense. The people who petitioned to cancel the trademark last time were old enough to have challenged it in 1967 but waited for 30 years, while the current petitioners aren't old enough to have possibly done so.

Ah, yeah, I didn't really understand why the age of the petitioners mattered (I just know that this is why it was turned down last time), but that does make sense.

it was something akin to statute of limitations. they were old enough that it didn't make sense that they hadn't complained before.

Ashmoria wrote:

Dakini wrote:Ah, yeah, I didn't really understand why the age of the petitioners mattered (I just know that this is why it was turned down last time), but that does make sense.

it was something akin to statute of limitations. they were old enough that it didn't make sense that they hadn't complained before.

Luckily, that won't work this time though.

Hell yeah hell yeah, right on. Change the fucking name already. If you have been told for decades by tons of people, "this is racist, this is insensitive, this is hurtful," and you are still hiding your ass by claiming "no, it's HONORING you!!!" then basically fuck you

Dakini wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:*sigh*


So, they apparently don't have to appeal on merits, but statute of limitations. If they do in fact have a previous identical decision to point to, the case is over and they win.

Uh... last time it got turned down because the people who were fighting it were too old. It won't work this time because they got younger Native Americans who don't like it when people use racial slurs about them to bring it up.

Could I get a source please? I don't see anything like that upthread, but I may have missed it.

Dakini wrote:

Ashmoria wrote:it was something akin to statute of limitations. they were old enough that it didn't make sense that they hadn't complained before.

Luckily, that won't work this time though.

it still might, snyder has vowed to appeal

Ethel mermania wrote:

Dakini wrote:Luckily, that won't work this time though.

it still might, snyder has vowed to appeal

Oy vey.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Dakini wrote:Uh... last time it got turned down because the people who were fighting it were too old. It won't work this time because they got younger Native Americans who don't like it when people use racial slurs about them to bring it up.

Could I get a source please? I don't see anything like that upthread, but I may have missed it.

Wiki has a summary.

Dakini wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Could I get a source please? I don't see anything like that upthread, but I may have missed it.

Wiki has a summary.

Ok. The plantiffs seem to be asserting laches was the problem with the original (looking at the linked USAToday story), which clears that up. Whether they're right is another story, and I guess that's what the courts will be settling. That's an interesting question, and I frankly don't know how to answer it, or even approach it.

The same scenario occurred in 1996 for the same. The team appealed it, and the cancellation was reversed. The team's lawyers expect the same result this time.

I hope the team wins the case.

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Hell yeah hell yeah, right on. Change the fucking name already. If you have been told for decades by tons of people, "this is racist, this is insensitive, this is hurtful," and you are still hiding your ass by claiming "no, it's HONORING you!!!" then basically fuck you

Right, except almost all the people claiming "RACIST!!!! RACIST!!!111" are privileged white liberals.

Sheltopolis wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Hell yeah hell yeah, right on. Change the fucking name already. If you have been told for decades by tons of people, "this is racist, this is insensitive, this is hurtful," and you are still hiding your ass by claiming "no, it's HONORING you!!!" then basically fuck you

Right, except almost all the people claiming "RACIST!!!! RACIST!!!111" are privileged white liberals.

and a whole bunch of redskins i mean american indians.

Sheltopolis wrote:

Stagnant Axon Terminal wrote:Hell yeah hell yeah, right on. Change the fucking name already. If you have been told for decades by tons of people, "this is racist, this is insensitive, this is hurtful," and you are still hiding your ass by claiming "no, it's HONORING you!!!" then basically fuck you

Right, except almost all the people claiming "RACIST!!!! RACIST!!!111" are privileged white liberals.

Source?

I mean, I'm sure it's the majority, but that's likely because most of the people who the name is racist towards have absolutely no political power or media presence, and are incredibly small in population due to a near-genocide performed against them for hundreds of years.

Ethel mermania wrote:and a whole bunch of redskins i mean american indians.

I think we should reach a compromise, just rename them the Injuns. That's about halfway there and in another 50 years we could change it to Indians.

Dakini wrote:

Murkwood wrote:This is just the Obama admin overreaching yet again. This isn't what the patent office should be doing.

Jesus. Haven't you been peddling this shit since page 1? The Obama administration has fuck-all to do with this.

You are correct, while Obama does appoint some members of the patent and trade mark office the decision was rendered by Article I judges not appointed by the President, and who cannot be fired without cause.

Northwest Slobovia wrote:

Dakini wrote:Wiki has a summary.

Ok. The plantiffs seem to be asserting laches was the problem with the original (looking at the linked USAToday story), which clears that up. Whether they're right is another story, and I guess that's what the courts will be settling. That's an interesting question, and I frankly don't know how to answer it, or even approach it.

Laches is an equitable defense, where a defendant asserts a plaintiff waited to long to bring the case. In more traditional cases that would be in after the wrong of injury.

Since the trademark was registered many years ago there is only a certain amount of time after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority (18) that the plaintiff may bring the suit. Since Laches is Equitable the amount of time depends.

Solution for this second filing is to have Native Americans who just turned 18 file the suit.

Vetalia wrote:

Ethel mermania wrote:and a whole bunch of redskins i mean american indians.

I think we should reach a compromise, just rename them the Injuns. That's about halfway there and in another 50 years we could change it to Indians.

injuns is still derogatory. if they changed to lenape, or any of the tribes from the washington area, they probably could trademark it.

greed and death wrote:

Dakini wrote:Jesus. Haven't you been peddling this shit since page 1? The Obama administration has fuck-all to do with this.

You are correct, while Obama does appoint some members of the patent and trade mark office the decision was rendered by Article I judges not appointed by the President, and who cannot be fired without cause.

Holy crap, did you just post something truthful?

Ethel mermania wrote:injuns is still derogatory. if they changed to lenape, or any of the tribes from the washington area, they probably could trademark it.

That'd be too easy.

greed and death wrote:

Northwest Slobovia wrote:Ok. The plantiffs seem to be asserting laches was the problem with the original (looking at the linked USAToday story), which clears that up. Whether they're right is another story, and I guess that's what the courts will be settling. That's an interesting question, and I frankly don't know how to answer it, or even approach it.

Laches is an equitable defense, where a defendant asserts a plaintiff waited to long to bring the case. In more traditional cases that would be in after the wrong of injury.

Since the trademark was registered many years ago there is only a certain amount of time after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority (18) that the plaintiff may bring the suit. Since Laches is Equitable the amount of time depends.

Solution for this second filing is to have Native Americans who just turned 18 file the suit.

what about the images, i would think the image is trademarked as well. the picture isnt inherently derogatory. did they strip the image as well?

Ethel mermania wrote:

greed and death wrote:Laches is an equitable defense, where a defendant asserts a plaintiff waited to long to bring the case. In more traditional cases that would be in after the wrong of injury.

Since the trademark was registered many years ago there is only a certain amount of time after the plaintiff reaches the age of majority (18) that the plaintiff may bring the suit. Since Laches is Equitable the amount of time depends.

Solution for this second filing is to have Native Americans who just turned 18 file the suit.

what about the images, i would think the image is trademarked as well. the picture isnt inherently derogatory. did they strip the image as well?

Just the usage of the word Redskins.

Now I think there is a misunderstanding on what has been canceled. The trademark itself was not canceled the patent office lacks the authority to do that. The Registration of the trademark was cancelled. You do not need the registration to have a trademark. Registration gives you some very important legal rights, most relevant here is it creates a presumption that owner has a trademark.

I shall explain the diffrence with a before and after.

Before if the Redskins were suing someone for a trademark violation they could show the judge the registration and the judge would presume the redskins had established a trademark. All the redskins would have to prove then is that the trademark was violated.

Now the redskins would have to first establish they have a trademark then prove the trademark was violated. For smaller business entities the presumption makes a big difference in legal fees. For established firms like the redskins I doubt they will have much of a problem proving they hold a valid trademark.

Yumyumsuppertime wrote:

greed and death wrote:You are correct, while Obama does appoint some members of the patent and trade mark office the decision was rendered by Article I judges not appointed by the President, and who cannot be fired without cause.

Holy crap, did you just post something truthful?

It is an interesting legal issue no need to sauce it up.