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.
Advertisement
by Dakini » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:47 am
Murkwood wrote:This is just the Obama admin overreaching yet again. This isn't what the patent office should be doing.
by Dakini » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:50 am
Northwest Slobovia wrote:Geilinor wrote:The only way the Redskins could win the appeal would be to show that "redskin" isn't disparaging.
*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.
by Geilinor » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:53 am
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.
by Dakini » Thu Jun 19, 2014 10:55 am
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.
by Ashmoria » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:03 am
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.
by Dakini » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:06 am
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.
by Stagnant Axon Terminal » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:44 am
Nanatsu No Tsuki wrote:the fetus will never eat cake if you abort it
Cu Math wrote:Axon is like a bear with a PH.D. She debates at first, then eats your face.
The Empire of Pretantia wrote:THE MAN'S PENIS HAS LEFT THE VAGINA. IT'S THE UTERUS'S TURN TO SHINE.
by Northwest Slobovia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:51 am
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.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:51 am
by Dakini » Thu Jun 19, 2014 11:59 am
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.
by Northwest Slobovia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:00 pm
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.
by Bari » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:05 pm
by Sheltopolis » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:07 pm
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
by Ethel mermania » Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:46 pm
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.
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:18 pm
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.
by Vetalia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:24 pm
Ethel mermania wrote:and a whole bunch ofredskinsi mean american indians.
by Greed and Death » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:37 pm
by Greed and Death » Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:45 pm
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.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:03 pm
by Yumyumsuppertime » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:07 pm
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.
by Vetalia » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:08 pm
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.
by Ethel mermania » Thu Jun 19, 2014 3:15 pm
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.
by Greed and Death » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:09 pm
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?
by Greed and Death » Thu Jun 19, 2014 4:10 pm
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?
Advertisement
Users browsing this forum: Andsed, Dazchan, Ethel mermania, Foxyshire, Gorutimania, ImSaLiA, Neanderthaland, Neu California, New haven america, Spirit of Hope, Stellar Colonies, Tiami, Tungstan, Yanitza
Advertisement