Jeezus Q Kryst!!!!


BaalChatzaf

Recommended Posts

18 Jun 2014: US Patent and Trademark Office rules that team's name cannot be trademarked, because it is offensive to Native Americans

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 100
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure, but I suspect a clever lawyer could sue the Trademark and Patent Office for discrimination by not allowing minorities to be represented in trademarks.

There would be a lot of blah blah blah about who finds the name Redskins offensive, but if enough Indians could be found who felt pride in that name and are now offended that their race will no longer be protected for trade after such a long historical run, I think a lawyer like that could have a shot.

At least he could stir up some shit big time.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am deeply offended by the name "Washington Redskins." That slur must be changed, and changed immediately! I suggest the "Washington Half-Breeds," or the "Washington Injuns."

Always glad to help out in a PC crisis....

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Washington Scalpers - covers the ticket issues at the same time...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

You are a complete imbecile sometimes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

The patent office can and does establishes limited ownership of and exclusive rights to trademarks and brands. It is completely legal and is authorized under the U.S. Constitution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

The patent office can and does establishes limited ownership of and exclusive rights to trademarks and brands. It is completely legal and is authorized under the U.S. Constitution.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Bob, I thought you have stated on numerous occasions that the Constitution ceased to exist during and after the Civil War...

Therefore, as the "smartest woman in the world," Hillary Rodham Rodham Clinton said,

"What difference does it make!"

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this story shocking and wholly unexpected. Who knew the fascist Thought Police of America had this much power? And how soon before America has an Iranian-style Morality Police as well?

Where is freedom of speech in all of this? And property rights? Aren't the Redskins a business worth well over $500 million? I think paying that high a price gives the owners the right to name their business anything they want. And when will the real bigotry of "affirmative action" finally be stopped?

To see this issue clearly people need to realize that not only do all individuals have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Privacy, but also to, so to speak, Bigotry, Stupidity, and Depravity. Such behavior may be profoundly socially immoral, but your life is your own, to do with as you wish, so long as you don't attack people and property. Under freedom you're allowed to be "anti-social," and a "hater," and to "hurt people's feelings" all day long! The purpose of gov't is to protect life, liberty, property, and privacy -- not to make us morally good.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dude...this is a simple "trademark" issue.

Anyone that attempts to try to run this "trademark" gauntlet in court is welcome to try...

Under common law, they will be buried.

However, this is not what this is about.

This is the "proverbial" "shot across the bow"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

The question is not whether it is legal to trademark the name but whether it should be legal.

Darrell

Does anyone here seriously question the idea that the law should not discriminate against people on the basis of race? Because there's no denying that that's what the government would be doing by protecting a racist trademark.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I find this story shocking and wholly unexpected. Who knew the fascist Thought Police of America had this much power? And how soon before America has an Iranian-style Morality Police as well?

Where is freedom of speech in all of this? And property rights? Aren't the Redskins a business worth well over $500 million? I think paying that high a price gives the owners the right to name their business anything they want. And when will the real bigotry of "affirmative action" finally be stopped?

To see this issue clearly people need to realize that not only do all individuals have the right to Life, Liberty, Property, and Privacy, but also to, so to speak, Bigotry, Stupidity, and Depravity. Such behavior may be profoundly socially immoral, but your life is your own, to do with as you wish, so long as you don't attack people and property. Under freedom you're allowed to be "anti-social," and a "hater," and to "hurt people's feelings" all day long! The purpose of gov't is to protect life, liberty, property, and privacy -- not to make us morally good.

No one is preventing the owners of the Redskins from calling their team the Redskins. Absolutely no one is violating their rights in any way here.

People might have a right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, but they don't have the right to taxpayer subsidized bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, which is what this trademark really is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

The question is not whether it is legal to trademark the name but whether it should be legal.

Darrell

Does anyone here seriously question the idea that the law should not discriminate against people on the basis of race? Because there's no denying that that's what the government would be doing by protecting a racist trademark.

Wouldn't a law that allows a person to trademark any name he wants to be neutral with regard to race?

Darrell

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is an in-the-know insider who is tut-tut-tutting about using the name Redskins.

But he's throwing in the towel about the appeal before the fight even begins.

Thompson: Daniel Snyder keeps on fighting

(Not time to quote from there. But read it. You begin to have hope that the USA has not completely gone down the crapper. :) )

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to the "soft" tyranny, citizen!

What tyranny? The US patent office just stopped doing something it can't legally do.

The question is not whether it is legal to trademark the name but whether it should be legal.

Darrell

Does anyone here seriously question the idea that the law should not discriminate against people on the basis of race? Because there's no denying that that's what the government would be doing by protecting a racist trademark.

Sticks and stones will break my bones, which is why a govt is needed to protect me from the initiation of force, please explain what a racist trademark may be and how govt is needed tp protect someone from the harm it may cause, that is protect them from the use of force.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

When I click on "Quote" to reply to a post, none of the previous material shows up. All I get is a blank screen, as if I were starting a post from scratch. The problem is not confined to this thread; it happens no matter what the thread. The problem seems to have started within the past few hours.

So is this a problem on my end, or is it a glitch in the software?

Ghs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Wouldn't a law that allows a person to trademark any name he wants to be neutral with regard to race?

Darrell

Sticks and stones will break my bones, which is why a govt is needed to protect me from the initiation of force, please explain what a racist trademark may be and how govt is needed tp protect someone from the harm it may cause, that is protect them from the use of force.

Someone who gets a racist trademark is discriminating on behalf and with the aid of the US government. So a law that allows a person to trademark any name he wants would be complicit with injustice.

The purpose of laws that prohibit racist trademarks is not to protect individuals from racism by other individuals, but to protect them from racism committed by the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael,

When I click on "Quote" to reply to a post, none of the previous material shows up. All I get is a blank screen, as if I were starting a post from scratch. The problem is not confined to this thread; it happens no matter what the thread. The problem seems to have started within the past few hours.

So is this a problem on my end, or is it a glitch in the software?

Ghs

George,

What browser are you using? There should be no problem with any of them, but I use Chrome with no issues. Firefox, too.

Why not install one of those, if they are not ones you use, and give it a whirl? They are free.

Also, have you tried cleaning out your cookies? That sometimes causes glitches like this.

If you have any more issues, just let me know and I will try to find a solution.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is preventing the owners of the Redskins from calling their team the Redskins. Absolutely no one is violating their rights in any way here.

People might have a right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, but they don't have the right to taxpayer subsidized bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, which is what this trademark really is.

Perfectly OK.

And if this cancellation stands, let's have some real fun once a conservative president gets elected.

I can think of oodles of trademarks that offend hardline conservatives based on (religious) bigotry, stupidity, and (sexual) depravity--stuff they definitely would not want taxpayers subsidizing.

All kinds of moral issues, in fact...

:smile:

Ya' really want to go down this road with them?

:smile:

When Bush did the Patriot Act, he never imagined an Obama. Imagine what the present government powers could do if someone like Rick Santorum (or worse) ever gets elected. :smile:

And that's not impossible. All it takes is one successful major terrorist attack.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one is preventing the owners of the Redskins from calling their team the Redskins. Absolutely no one is violating their rights in any way here.

People might have a right to bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, but they don't have the right to taxpayer subsidized bigotry, stupidity, and depravity, which is what this trademark really is.

Perfectly OK.

And if this cancellation stands, let's have some real fun once a conservative president gets elected.

I can think of oodles of trademarks that offend hardline conservatives based on (religious) bigotry, stupidity, and (sexual) depravity--stuff they definitely would not want taxpayers subsidizing.

All kinds of moral issues, in fact...

:smile:

Ya' really want to go down this road with them?

:smile:

When Bush did the Patriot Act, he never imagined an Obama. Imagine what the present government powers could do if someone like Rick Santorum (or worse) ever gets elected. :smile:

And that's not impossible. All it takes is one successful major terrorist attack.

Michael

There's a difference between discrimination and offense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's a difference between discrimination and offense.

Really? And what would that difference be?

Additionally, how would that difference relate to what this thread is about?

A...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now