Re: Bye bye Redskins

1

It's a trademark.


Posted by: urple | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 9:52 AM
horizontal rule
2

BATS AREN'T BUGS.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
3

It's a cookbook!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 9:53 AM
horizontal rule
4

The Washington Big Bug Menace of the Skies?


Posted by: Tom Scudder | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:01 AM
horizontal rule
5

Lahyers, what does this mean?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:02 AM
horizontal rule
6

IT MEANS HE GETS RESULTS, YOU STUPID CHIEF!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:03 AM
horizontal rule
7

(Clearly I'm descending into nonsensical tagline hell, because for the first time in a month I've sat down to do actual work.)


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:04 AM
horizontal rule
8

Now that they have lost patent protection, the manufacturers of generics will eat their lunch. They need a new product to patent.

Oh, what's that, comment 1? Nevermind.


Posted by: Emily L | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:08 AM
horizontal rule
9

Apparently this happened back in 1999, but an appeals court reversed in 2009? Is this more likely to survive an appeal?


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
10

Yes, it means that (if the appeal fails) anybody can sell Redskins paraphernalia and Dan Snyder can't sue them.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:13 AM
horizontal rule
11

It means they can't bring a claim of infringement of their logo under the federal trademark laws anymore, though they may still have other (less effective?) ways of preventing others from using them. I don't know enough to guess how big an impact it'll have on their revenues but I predict not enough to change Snyder's mind any time soon.

Less confident prediction: they'll take this to the Supreme Court and get a decision holding that invalidating trademarks on the ground that they are offensive is a First Amendment violation.

I suppose I could look it up, but this in the linked article is puzzling:

The decision ... was similar to one issued in 1999 that was overturned four years later on appeal, largely because the courts decided that the plaintiffs were too old.

Surely there's no maximum age limit for trademark challenges?


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:16 AM
horizontal rule
12

Also, another link I read on the subject described the appeals decision as because of standing.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
13

(URLs can be so informative these days!)


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:20 AM
horizontal rule
14

Surely there's no maximum age limit for trademark challenges?

Apparently this is the doctrine of "laches". It's not so much an age limit as a kind of statute of limitations, which the courts have decided runs from attaining seniority for individuals .


Posted by: Ginger Yellow | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:26 AM
horizontal rule
15

11: Here's my guess: The trademark was voided for offensiveness, and the evidence showed that the name had become offensive over time to actual (read:white) people.

So oldsters have no standing to find it offensive? I dunno.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:28 AM
horizontal rule
16

14: yeah, just looked up the decision, it was laches. NYT must've gotten confused because the decision hinged in part on the fact that the youngest plaintiff had reached majority ~7 years before suing, so that was the relevant "unjustifiably sleeping on his rights" period.


Posted by: potchkeh | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 10:34 AM
horizontal rule
17

Now I'm torn between wanting to screw over Snyder by selling Redskins merch and not wanting to offend Native Americans by selling Redskins merch.

On a related note, AB is temporarily working with a woman who is half-Native*, half-African American, has a background in archaeology and social work, and is a member of Pittsburgh's official women's football team. I hope I get to meet her.

*AB just met her yesterday, and couldn't recall which tribe. As it happens, the tribe is matrilineal, and it's her dad who's a member, and as a result, she's not legally a member of the tribe. I honestly didn't know it could work like that, as my sense was that tribes tended to be inclusive more than exclusive


Posted by: JRoth | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
18

a woman who is half-Native*, half-African American, has a background in archaeology and social work, and is a member of Pittsburgh's official women's football team.

I'm pretty sure she'd ace that quiz from a few days ago.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 11:32 AM
horizontal rule
19

17.last: Sometimes, there's money involved.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 11:34 AM
horizontal rule
20

17.last : there was a This American Life episode about that. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/491/tribes

(tl;dl : tribes are kicking out members so there's more casino $ to go around for those who are members of the tribe)


Posted by: parodie | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
21

Like all Washington fans, I hate and despise Dan Snyder and would cheerfully get behind going full Halford/UofC on him.

I don't think offhand that there are enough people who actually care about the offensiveness of the name to win this fight, but when you add in people who hate and despise Snyder it's probably a clear majority of the public.

They should rename themselves to "Skins," which is what everyone in DC calls them anyway, and it goes well with the traditional "Shirts" versus "Skins" pickup game team names. (Basketball, but whatevah.)


Posted by: DaveLMA | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 12:35 PM
horizontal rule
22

They should rename themselves to "Skins," which is what everyone in DC calls them anyway, and it goes well with the traditional "Shirts" versus "Skins" pickup game team names.

And play topless!


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
23

||

Since this is (theoretically) the race thread, I'll mention that there's an excellent series just launched on PBS, the American Experience program, on the US civil rights movement in the early '60s: last night was "Freedom Riders", on black (and white) activists insisting on riding buses into Alabama, and then into Mississippi, in 1961. Much stuff on how RFK, then US Attorney General, handled it (in terms of the Interstate Commerce Clause). Next week, on June 24, is to be the second segment,"Freedom Summer", on attempts to secure voting rights for African-Americans. Highly recommended.

|>


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 12:52 PM
horizontal rule
24

They should rename themselves to "Skins,"

The Washington Potato Skins.


Posted by: AcademicLurker | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
25

The Washington Ruskins. And they could replace the Indian profile on their helmets with the portrait at the top of this page.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
26

The Drones.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
27

The Washington Filibusters.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
28

The Washington Ruxpins!


Posted by: jms | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:31 PM
horizontal rule
29

The North Virginia Rednecks.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:33 PM
horizontal rule
30

I'm fond of the Washington Crackers myself. The logo could be a Ritz cracker so everyone would know it's totally not a slur.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
31

Would "A Pitiable Martinet's Doomed Craving for Attention" fit on a jersey?


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
32

Maybe they should just replace all the Indian imagery with potatoes, and reregister the "Redskins" trademark.

Wait, no: http://thinkprogress.org/sports/2014/03/19/3416343/federal-trademark-office-rejects-washington-redskins-potatoes-as-disparaging-term/


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 2:41 PM
horizontal rule
33

The Washington Irvings.


Posted by: A. T. Tappman, Chaplain, U.S. Army | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 3:31 PM
horizontal rule
34

Since this is the football thread...

Spain?!?

Oh, and since when does Big Boy have a team?


Posted by: md 20/400 | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
35

23: RFK also played a critical role in racially integrating the Washington D.C. professional football team, the last team to be so integrated.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 7:13 PM
horizontal rule
36

Wow. Someone on FB has just described the name pressure as "bullying".


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
37

Good enough reason to finally unfriend.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
38

Just looking at the decision, I saw a cite to this one from 2008, which is another interesting application of the principles involved, and may speak more directly to some folks.

The tl;dr is: 'it's not disparaging, we're reclaiming the term' doesn't work.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 7:36 PM
horizontal rule
39

As it happens, the tribe is matrilineal, and it's her dad who's a member, and as a result, she's not legally a member of the tribe. I honestly didn't know it could work like that, as my sense was that tribes tended to be inclusive more than exclusive

The, um, other half of her ancestry might be relevant in this connection. Also there's the dynamic mentioned in 19 and 20, which is probably more likely. In general individual tribes set their own enrollment policies and they vary a lot.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-18-14 7:51 PM
horizontal rule
40

The Washington Ruskins.

Only hiring players with a pathological horror of pubic hair on women would probably limit the pool unacceptably.


Posted by: chris y | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 4:48 AM
horizontal rule
41

inclusive more than exclusive

Not my sense at all, but my experience is limited in time and geography. Also, "half" Native may not be enough for membership in a specific polity where that half consists of ancestry of more than one ethnicity (even without the matrilineal feature): if only one of the father's grandparents was a member of the specific group in which he claims/feels/has identity. the colleague would be an 1/8th . . .

I guess I'm not aware of any specific Native polity where membership strictly matrilineal, but (and teo correct me on this please) I have a recollection of hearing that clan membership among the Tohajiilee is.


Posted by: CharleyCarp | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 6:02 AM
horizontal rule
42

I was going to suggest (what should be obvious, but I've not seen it yet) Washington Rednecks, but Moby suggested something similar. I don't understand why N. Virginia instead of Washington, however.

Re Washington Irvings: How many Jews are there on the team?

Re As it happens, the tribe is matrilineal, and it's her dad who's a member, and as a result, she's not legally a member of the tribe. I honestly didn't know it could work like that, as my sense was that tribes tended to be inclusive more than exclusive.

I think Jews are the largest "tribe" (see "member of the tribe") in the US that defines membership matrilineally, and I don't think we have often been described as inclusive: clannish perhaps, but rarely inclusive.


Posted by: marcel | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 9:07 AM
horizontal rule
43

I thought the stadium was in Virginia, but I was wrong.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 9:09 AM
horizontal rule
44

I think Jews are the largest "tribe"

There shouldn't be any problem changing the name to the Washington Foreskins, then.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 9:23 AM
horizontal rule
45

I look forward to seeing the retractable helmet design.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 9:24 AM
horizontal rule
46

40: No, that seems to be every American man under the age of 40.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 9:34 AM
horizontal rule
47

I guess I'm not aware of any specific Native polity where membership strictly matrilineal, but (and teo correct me on this please) I have a recollection of hearing that clan membership among the Tohajiilee is.

Navajo clan membership is certainly matrilineal, but I'm pretty sure tribal membership is not. I've actually never heard of a tribe that bases membership on a traditional descent system, but I suppose there's no reason it couldn't be done. As you note, membership is usually based on blood quantum.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 7:33 PM
horizontal rule
48

Ah, here we go:

The Navajo Nation requires a blood quantum of one-quarter for a person to be eligible for enrollment as a member, the equivalent of one grandparent, or having one of four Diné clans, to be and to receive a Certificate of Indian Blood (CIB). In 2004, the Navajo Nation Council voted down a proposal to reduce the blood quantum to one-eighth, which would have effectively doubled the number of individuals qualified to be enrolled Navajo tribal members.

Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 7:41 PM
horizontal rule
49

Blood has both particle and wave characteristics, but the later only come out at the molecular level or Tarantino movies.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 06-19-14 7:43 PM
horizontal rule