Patent office rules against Redskins Trademark

[Rambunctious]

This ruling was at the request of Native Americans.

This ruling was at the request of some Native Americans

 

[mikey728]

mikey I try too see the humor in most things. With the world the way its is today you have too laugh or cry. And this board for the most part is wound up tighter than dicks hat band most of the time. I chose too laugh. I don't shout other posters down. I don't demean or name call as some do. I just sit here in the bushes polishing my scope an sipeing. And hopefully getting a few belly laughs in the process.

I do as well, ozark...Sometimes the political correct stuff just gets me out of control...I'm early 60-something so I'm not quite as calm about this kind of stuff as lots of other people...I love to make people laugh, but my sense of humor is so dry, it's actually arid...Many times the joy is not there for me, as they don't get it until they're half way home...Better late than never...I like your humor... Subtle, but not invisible...Keep rotating those shorts, my friend...Never know when somebody will actually bite...

 

[ozarkram]

I been bitten before. I do believe we maybe kindred spirits. My humor is much the same even running too dark. I am early 50 something. Laundry is like baths once a week whether they need it or not.

 

[jacobarch]

I guess I just wondered why Obama keeps ending up in the conversation, since it's been pretty clearly established that he had nothing to do with the ruling. A soundbite on the matter doesn't really count. I mean... presidents talk about stuff.

How exactly will all 32 teams lose money on this, though? And what vote are you referring to? (And I'm not being facetious. I'm genuinely asking these things). If anything, as someone else pointed out earlier, there's actually an opportunity for a pretty sizable windfall for Snyder in merchandising alone.

All 32 teams will lose out because the NFL owners share revenue.

 

[mikey728]

All 32 teams will lose out because the NFL owners share revenue.

I wasn't aware that the merchandise sales were part of the revenue sharing plan...Is it really ???

 

[jacobarch]

I wasn't aware that the merchandise sales were part of the revenue sharing plan...Is it really ???

Absolutely. They were talking about it on NFL blitz today.

 

[Caliskinsfan]

FYI

 

[Caynine29]

All 32 teams will lose out because the NFL owners share revenue.

Yes... I'm aware of the NFL's revenue sharing agreement. But, it seems to me that just about any way you look at it all 32 teams would only stand to gain from the Redskins changing their name. New name/logo/colors (if they change those too) means all new merchandising. Millions of fans buying all new jerseys, hats, memorabilia, tailgating supplies, etc. Plus, all new set of "throwbacks" gear is built in. Although, I'm not 100% certain on the copyright laws, the Redskins jerseys prior to 2001 carried neither the logo, nor nickname. Not to mention the potential for more new fans for both Washington AND the NFL. Which, of course, every owner wants.

It seems to me that the only potential for financial loss would arise if they didn't change. With the threat of public scrutiny, boycotts and the like. From a financial point of view (assuming that's what this was actually all about) a re-branding seems like a win-win.

 

[shopson67]

Love how you got a political jab in with your statement. It doesn't mean much tho. I can sit here and call the other side the, "just do it because I said so" party.

It works both ways buddy. At least I can admit that.

You obviously missed the point of one of my statements too. These entities are supposed to be free of political agenda. You think it's just pure coincidence of what is transpiring? If you do then you live with your head in the sand.

Also, I understand that changing the redskins name isn't that big of a deal. The world will keep on spinning and Washington will still have a team and there will still be football every Sunday. So I don't see it as a huge deal.

Here's where I do see it as a huge deal....
There are soooo many more important things to worry about in this country. Just like Boss said. Crime, Schools, Drugs, Immigration, Our Countries debt., N Korea, Russia invading other countries, terrorism, and so on.

My 30 year old nephew is half native american. Let me tell you how many shits he's gives about this...........Zero.

Your sample size is a bit small in your polling, lol.

Of course there are bigger issues, doesn't mean you can't fix the small ones. Should the Rams not address other needs, even if the QB position isn't ideal? Not an ideal comparison, but it serves it's purpose.

Nothing happens in this country without political agenda, which is in turn ruled by lobbyist agendas.

As far as the "just say no" party statement, the Repubs haven't made that a secret; they publicly acknowledged that.

Bigger issues:

Crime: Repubs shoot down every gun legislation, no matter how wimpy the Dems make it
Immigration: Repubs shoot down everything that isn't "send 'em all home"
Schools: Repubs continually call for budget reductions
Health: Repubs still trying to repeal watered-down Omaba-care, even though it's Romney-care
Foreign wars: Repubs will just call Obama wrong no matter which decision he makes
Debt: largely due to the wars we're already in (or recently were in), Repubs won't budge on military spending, etc

Of course, the Dems are to blame just as much. The things they say they stand for they wilt on every time. However, to call them the "just do it because I said so" party makes no sense, as they didn't force legislation through when they did have the majority in both the house and senate during Obama's first term. If anything, they've been more limp-wristed than I can recall in the past.

 

[shopson67]

Why acquiesce to these self serving politicians Shopson? They were never offended by the name before this. Only because it fits into their political agenda do they take up the imagined cause now. Makes me sick. And as Retro stated earlier, the Native Americans for the most part are not offended by this name. You constantly state things that you can't back up with facts. I think you do it to just stir things up. :ss:

And if your motivation is purely $$$ regardless of what the fanbase wants, well that's pretty pathetic as well.

The simple fact is the Native Americans instigated this process, not the liberals. Doesn't that reflect their problem with the name?

Exactly what polls are you quoting for approval/disapproval of the Redskins name? You're not exactly bringing any facts to the table here, are you?

I don't do anything to stir things up; I speak my mind. If anything, I don't reply to threads so as NOT to stir things up.

 

[Vitamike]

FYI

Wow the mascot too!

Good bye Chief Zee!

Yes... I'm aware of the NFL's revenue sharing agreement. But, it seems to me that just about any way you look at it all 32 teams would only stand to gain from the Redskins changing their name. New name/logo/colors (if they change those too) means all new merchandising. Millions of fans buying all new jerseys, hats, memorabilia, tailgating supplies, etc. Plus, all new set of "throwbacks" gear is built in. Although, I'm not 100% certain on the copyright laws, the Redskins jerseys prior to 2001 carried neither the logo, nor nickname. Not to mention the potential for more new fans for both Washington AND the NFL. Which, of course, every owner wants.

It seems to me that the only potential for financial loss would arise if they didn't change. With the threat of public scrutiny, boycotts and the like. From a financial point of view (assuming that's what this was actually all about) a re-branding seems like a win-win.

What the new throwback stuff wouldn't be grandfathered in and allowed to use the 'official team name' used during it's respective era?

What's next???

I'll guess, this....

At least they changed it from this...

 

[Caynine29]

The old stuff may very well be grandfathered in. That's why I said that I'm not 100% certain on the rules. But, even if it was, I doubt they'd use it after making the change (then again... money talks). Regardless, it'd still be a cash cow with, or without the throwbacks.

You're a little late to the party on Cleveland's "Chief Wahoo", though. Maybe it's because I live so close to Cleveland, but it always surprises me when I hear people include the Indians' logo in the "Who's next?" discussion, considering he's been under scrutiny for years. But, it's an interesting example to bring up. In case you haven't noticed, the Cleveland Indians are actively phasing Wahoo out of the mix, as he's appearing on less and less team merchandise every year.

This is now the team's official logo, as of last season. And they've been using a script "I" for the last few years prior to that. At home games, the stadium is filled with these hats and the parking lots are littered with bumper stickers, flags and license plate brackets featuring the "Block C". I can assure you... if you take a quick stroll down by E. 9th St. and Carnegie and it'll become pretty evident that the Indians' front office isn't losing any money here.

 

[BOSS429Mustang]

The simple fact is the Native Americans instigated this process, not the liberals. Doesn't that reflect their problem with the name?

Exactly what polls are you quoting for approval/disapproval of the Redskins name? You're not exactly bringing any facts to the table here, are you?

I don't do anything to stir things up; I speak my mind. If anything, I don't reply to threads so as NOT to stir things up.

Let's just apply a little common sense here Shopson. Why in the world would anybody DELIBERTLY name their franchise a derogatory name? If you read the articles, George Preston Marshall choose the name to HONOR his head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was an Indian. So the name was really intended to be something of honor to the Native Americans. But as usual, you being a Liberal, and myself being a conservative, we most likely will never have anything to agree on. And being a Liberal as you are, the very nature of a Liberal is to change the set standard to something more.....shall we say "relaxed"

There have been no polls that I can find to suggest Native Americans are offended or not offended by the name. But it seems that their silence alone would indicate that this is really a trivial issue to them, as Retro and Jacob pointed out in earlier posts. So one or two of them got the idea to initiate a process to change the name. According to your liberal logic I guess that must constitute the majority of them are then in support of the few huh?

This is nothing but political hyperbole. Politically motivated. The same as the homosexual support. It's politically correct. Nobody cared about this so called offensive name 20 years ago. Why all of the sudden now? Because its' PC that's why. You're one of the few who doesn't see it past your liberal colored glasses. The same is true for the homosexual movement. When I was in school if you admitted your were homosexual there would be a line waiting after school to whup your #@$#. Now, because it's PC, even our idiot president changed his opinion because of PCness.

As usual Shopson, you make everybody else look brilliant by default with your illogic.

 

[jacobarch]

Let's just apply a little common sense here Shopson. Why in the world would anybody DELIBERTLY name their franchise a derogatory name? If you read the articles, George Preston Marshall choose the name to HONOR his head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was an Indian. So the name was really intended to be something of honor to the Native Americans. But as usual, you being a Liberal, and myself being a conservative, we most likely will never have anything to agree on. And being a Liberal as you are, the very nature of a Liberal is to change the set standard to something more.....shall we say "relaxed"

There have been no polls that I can find to suggest Native Americans are offended or not offended by the name. But it seems that their silence alone would indicate that this is really a trivial issue to them, as Retro and Jacob pointed out in earlier posts. So one or two of them got the idea to initiate a process to change the name. According to your liberal logic I guess that must constitute the majority of them are then in support of the few huh?

This is nothing but political hyperbole. Politically motivated. The same as the homosexual support. It's politically correct. Nobody cared about this so called offensive name 20 years ago. Why all of the sudden now? Because its' PC that's why. You're one of the few who doesn't see it past your liberal colored glasses. The same is true for the homosexual movement. When I was in school if you admitted your were homosexual there would be a line waiting after school to whup your #@$#. Now, because it's PC, even our idiot president changed his opinion because of PCness.

As usual Shopson, you make everybody else look brilliant by default with your illogic.

fuk-in-a Boss

Well said, took the damn words right out of my mouth.


Oh and I might as well jump in and Say Shopson and Cay are going to jump in and twist what you said about no one caring 20 years ago. They're gonna come in and say actually they did care 20 years ago. So let me clear this up for them.

No one other than a very very small minority cared 20 years ago.
Only reason why it's become an issue is from what I said earlier. Obama got involved, it's all over the media and now the patent office has done their share.

Which brings me to say if Obama didn't come out and say something and the media didn't try to push their agenda on people none of us would be talking about this.

 

[Caynine29]

Let's just apply a little common sense here Shopson. Why in the world would anybody DELIBERTLY name their franchise a derogatory name? If you read the articles, George Preston Marshall choose the name to HONOR his head coach William "Lone Star" Dietz, who was an Indian. So the name was really intended to be something of honor to the Native Americans. But as usual, you being a Liberal, and myself being a conservative, we most likely will never have anything to agree on. And being a Liberal as you are, the very nature of a Liberal is to change the set standard to something more.....shall we say "relaxed"

The team's name was actually changed from "Braves" to differentiate it from the, then Boston Braves baseball team. The claim that it was named for William Henry Deitz, is unsubstantiated (it was actually debated that Dietz wasn't even Sioux to begin with). As far as deliberately naming a franchise something derogatory, well... 80+ years ago, this was a far different country than it is today. Anything blatantly racist simply wasn't a big deal back then. It wasn't uncommon for many products to carry names with racist undertones (if not overt ones).

There have been no polls that I can find to suggest Native Americans are offended or not offended by the name. But it seems that their silence alone would indicate that this is really a trivial issue to them, as Retro and Jacob pointed out in earlier posts. So one or two of them got the idea to initiate a process to change the name. According to your liberal logic I guess that must constitute the majority of them are then in support of the few huh?

This is nothing but political hyperbole. Politically motivated. The same as the homosexual support. It's politically correct. Nobody cared about this so called offensive name 20 years ago. Why all of the sudden now? Because its' PC that's why.

Aside from the fact that we're discussing it today, I would imagine that the number of suits, protests and boycotts brought by Native Americans would be enough of a poll to tell us that it's somewhat of an issue. Incidentally... the first National protests actually occurred in 1988, following Super Bowl XXII, when several Native Americans requested that then, owner Jack Kent Cooke change the name. It's been a hot-button issue ever since. 26 years isn't exactly "all of a sudden" and it certainly isn't "silence".

Now, personally the name doesn't directly offend me, either... as I'm not Native American. But, I recognize it does offend them. If it's not going to hurt anything to change it (and honestly, it isn't), I figure why not just do it? What's the big deal? Teams change their name all the time.

But, hey... it's not my decision to make.

 

[jacobarch]

The team's name was actually changed from "Braves" to differentiate it from the, then Boston Braves baseball team. The claim that it was named for William Henry Deitz, is unsubstantiated (it was actually debated that Dietz wasn't even Sioux to begin with). As far as deliberately naming a franchise something derogatory, well... 80+ years ago, this was a far different country than it is today. Anything blatantly racist simply wasn't a big deal back then. It wasn't uncommon for many products to carry names with racist undertones (if not overt ones).

But, hey... it's not my decision to make.

There is some 'grasping for straws' in that statement. Do your homework. The name was named after the Coach and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to stir the pot. I've heard plenty of radio host argue for it or against it and each have compelling arguments. However, I tend to believe people who actually played for the Skins (lol) and know their tradition and history.

Case and point on radio host agreeing and disagreeing...

One radio host said, would society accept a team being called the Atlanta Darkies?
We've all heard the phrase darkie used in a joking manner or a racial slur. I know I've heard it on the Chappelle show many times.
Whens the last time you've heard someone use Redskin in a racial connotation? Please do tell....

I've never heard it used a derogatory way. I've only heard it used to name a football team.

Aside from the fact that we're discussing it today, I would imagine that the number of suits, protests and boycotts brought by Native Americans would be enough of a poll to tell us that it's somewhat of an issue. Incidentally... the first National protests actually occurred in 1988, following Super Bowl XXII, when several Native Americans requested that then, owner Jack Kent Cooke change the name. It's been a hot-button issue ever since. 26 years isn't exactly "all of a sudden" and it certainly isn't "silence".


But, hey... it's not my decision to make.

See BOSS, Called it!!

 

[Caynine29]

Which brings me to say if Obama didn't come out and say something and the media didn't try to push their agenda on people none of us would be talking about this.

DAMN YOU, OBAMA!!!!!! Lol.

 

[jacobarch]

DAMN YOU, OBAMA!!!!!! Lol.

haha, come on I'm not blaming Obama per say.

In 1988 did the Ronald Reagan speak about it and say that the Redskins needed to change their name? Oh no he did not....Why?? First the obvious he was our last good president (besides clinton) yes, yes, I think he too was a good president. And he had more important things to do than make statements about something he had nothing to do with.

btw here's some fun FACTS

“More than a decade ago, one of the foremost scholars of Native American languages, Smithsonian Institute’s senior linguist, Ives Goddard, spent seven months researching the subject and concluded that the word “redskin” originated as a Native American expression of solidarity by multi-tribal delegations that traveled to Washington to negotiate Native American national policies. In his words, “The actual origin of the word (“redskin”) is entirely benign and reflects more positive aspects of relations between Indians and whites. Our use of “redskins” as the name of our football team for more than 81 years has always been respectful of and shown reverence toward the proud legacy and traditions of Native Americans.

In 1971, while my father was head coach, our current logo was designed and approved by Native American leaders. One such leader was Walter “Blackie” Wetzel, a former President of the National Congress of American Indians and Chairman of the Blackfeet Nation. Mr. Wetzel worked closely with President John F. Kennedy in the national movement for civil rights. Mr. Wetzel’s son, Don, wrote just two months ago, “It needs to be said that an Indian from the state of Montana created that (“Redskins”) logo, and did it the right way. It represents the Red Nation, and it’s something to be proud of.”

 

[Caynine29]

There is some 'grasping for straws' in that statement. Do your homework. The name was named after the Coach and anyone who says otherwise is just trying to stir the pot. I've heard plenty of radio host argue for it or against it and each have compelling arguments. However, I tend to believe people who actually played for the Skins (lol) and know their tradition and history.

After a little more research, it appears we're both right.

"The last major change that Marshall made was to the team’s name. On July 6, 1933 an article titled, “Braves Pro Gridmen to Be Called Redskins,” was published in the Boston Herald. In the article it said, “The explanation is that the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and that the team is to be coached by an Indian, Lone Star Dietz, with several Indian players.” -Tom Pollin. Football Nation.

"But what if Coach Lone Star Dietz wasn’t an Indian? That’s what some critics of the team’s name and some historians say. They call him an impostor, citing accounts that Dietz was a German American from Wisconsin who wanted to play football as an Indian to cash in on the fame accorded athletes such as Jim Thorpe, his good friend. Dietz also served jail time for dodging the draft during World War I because he falsely registered as an Indian." -Richard Leiby Washington Post

See BOSS, Called it!!

AWW DAMMIT!!! You caught me citing fact again! Well played, Jacob. Well played.

 

[jacobarch]

After a little more research, it appears we're both right.

"The last major change that Marshall made was to the team’s name. On July 6, 1933 an article titled, “Braves Pro Gridmen to Be Called Redskins,” was published in the Boston Herald. In the article it said, “The explanation is that the change was made to avoid confusion with the Braves baseball team and that the team is to be coached by an Indian, Lone Star Dietz, with several Indian players.” -Tom Pollin. Football Nation.

"But what if Coach Lone Star Dietz wasn’t an Indian? That’s what some critics of the team’s name and some historians say. They call him an impostor, citing accounts that Dietz was a German American from Wisconsin who wanted to play football as an Indian to cash in on the fame accorded athletes such as Jim Thorpe, his good friend. Dietz also served jail time for dodging the draft during World War I because he falsely registered as an Indian." -Richard Leiby Washington Post



AWW DAMMIT!!! You caught me citing fact again! Well played, Jacob. Well played.

I just knew you were gonna catch that so i figured i might as well beat you to the punch.

Well honestly like you have stated before it's not going to change your life or mine if they end up changing their name. Yes, I think there is a bigger picture here and if we don't nip-this-in-the-bud now it's going to run rampid(sp?). Which in some cases it already has.
MHO is not the name change but the political agenda behind it. The PC has got to the point of no return, even the super liberal Bill Maher has made statements about it.

Anyways, we'll see what happens with this hopefully enough people come out and say enough is enough.