Threading the Needle at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

[AngelsWin.com]

 

By David Saltzer, AngelsWin.com Senior Writer - 

 

This week’s road trip for the Angels has been an interesting one—and not for the team’s record on the field or its problems with the bullpen. It started with the Angels in Atlanta, playing the Braves, and finished with the Angels in Cleveland, playing the Indians. In between, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office issued a ruling removing the protections for six of the Washington Redskins trademarks that has implications for both of the teams the Angels played this week. You can read the decision here. 

 

All of this comes as basketball is dealing with the Donald Sterling situation.

 

Normally, I am not a fan of the politically correct thought police. I generally think that it’s a waste of time to try and force people to think “correctly” and if anything, does more to reinforce the negative viewpoints. 

 

But in this case, I think the court got it right. The government should not be in the business of protecting disparaging trademarks that are on their face offensive to specific groups of Americans.

 

In no way do I want to call Daniel Snyder, or any of the fans of the Redskins racist. This isn’t about that. The issue here is whether or not the government should be in the business of protecting a property ownership interest in an offensive term.

 

On its face, it’s clear that the term is offensive. No one today would think of walking up to a Native American and calling him/her a “redskin” just as no one today would walk up to an African American and call him an “N***”, a Jewish person a “Kike” or an Hispanic person a “brown skin”. No one today would think to name a team with any of those terms.

 

Sure, in the past, some terms were not considered as offensive as they are today. And, in general, yes, I believe people are way to oversensitive on the subject of race. I do not want to see Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn banned because of the writing. Nor do I want to see the Mikado banned or redacted because it contains the n-word. Works of art should be seen as they were, and people can judge them accordingly. They should be seen within the context of the times that created them. People need to stop seeing racism everywhere simply because of their world view. 

 

But the trademarks owned by the team are a different subject. They aren’t works of art. They are assets, given value by the protections afforded them by the government—the government for all Americans. In that sense, the government has no business being in the business of disparaging one group for the economic benefit of another.  

 

The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the court within the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office) isn’t saying that the Redskins can’t go by the term “Redskins”. If Snyder wants to call the team that, he can. If the fans call the team that, they can. And I sure don’t want a warning label slapped on next year’s football season prior to every Redskins game that fans might be exposed to racist language (or some PSA warning like that). We are adults and free—and freedom for all means sometimes being exposed to things from others that we may find offensive. 

 

The best way to deal with racism is to disown it and diffuse it. By invalidating the trademarks, the court is doing just that. If the team and fans want to continue it, they can. They just can’t own it. 

 

Over time, the marketplace will sort this out. How offensive the term is can be determined by the public’s response. At some point, the economics will either persuade Snyder to change the name or to keep it. Advertisers and broadcasters can decide if the marketing with the team’s name justifies any potential stigma associated with it. If the economics become so unbearable for the league, then they too can take action to force a change, just like the NBA is doing with Sterling. 

 

The Redskins can still protect its image and name in the courts. It will just have a harder time without the protections afforded by the trademarks. It will then be up to the team to try and prove in court that the unlicensed item is in fact a copy of their exact images and terms and not based on other work. This could result in outcomes that the team does not want as the team would have to distinguish its images from similar ones which may or may not be racist. Legally arguing how one set of images and names are disparaging while similar ones are not is a difficult needle to thread.

 

I’d like to propose a simple test to determine whether or not some of these team names should be kept. The test should be whether or not a new team would be so named with a comparable name from other groups. Basically, if the name's categorization is applicable and acceptable to all, then it should be kept. If not, then it should be changed. 

 

So this brings us back to the teams the Angels played this week. Should they lose their trademark protections as well? In the case of the Braves, I don’t think so. In terms of the Indians, I’m not sure.

 

As a noun, “braves” is defined to mean either “a brave person” or “a warrior, especially among North American Indian tribes.* As such, it is comparable to “Spartans” for Greek warriors, “Berserkers” for German warriors,  â€œSamurais” and “Ninjas” for Japanese warriors, "Assassins" for Persians, etc. I don’t think any group would have a problem with those terms, so the Braves should be allowed to continue.

 

As for the Cleveland Indians, I’m not so sure. Since it refers to a entire race of people, it could be seen as a lot more offensive. Would a sports team today form and be called by a specific ethnic group? I think not. I can’t imagine a team today being called the “L.A. Caucasians” or anything resembling that. So, at some point, the Cleveland Indians may wish to reconsider their team’s name and logo. I don't believe that they should be forced to change. Instead, let the court of public opinion help them decide.

 

It would be different for the Cleveland Indians if they were named after a specific tribe such as the Chicago Blackhawks or Florida Seminoles. In that situation the team could license the name from the tribe and a decision by the so-named group could be made. I would have no problem if a team gained permission from a tribe through such a deal because the aggrieved group could weigh the benefits and detriments of the deal. However, with a name like the Cleveland Indians, it would be impossible to gain that kind of permission from all Native American tribes and all Native Americans so in the end, it be deemed offensive. 

 

The term “redskin” is offensive because it specifically refers to a perceived physical difference between people. As such, our government has no legitimate interest in protecting a property interest in language and images that are offensive to specific groups of Americans. While this may cause a financial impact on the value on the team, and may impact several other team names in different sports, it’s better for our government not to take an active stance that supports one group’s finances at the expense of disparaging other groups of Americans. There are many ways for teams to deal with this ruling and they have the freedom to continue on as is. But I would rather live in a country that doesn’t treat racially offensive language as an asset to a business.

[Dave Saltzer]

I find it hard to believe that no one else has an opinion on this issue.

[nando714]

This is so stupid

The team name is been the same for what 50 years?

All of a sudden people are offended

[jsnpritchett]

Before the Braves came to town, the Atlanta minor league team was called the Crackers for more than 60 years.  Never heard any of the old-timers back in GA complain about it.  I always thought it was funny.  I think people are too sensitive to things like this in general.

[Spirit]

Is this one of those words that only offensive if non-Native Americans use it?  This school for instance, "The school is located on the Navajo Reservation and is a public school. We have nearly 100% Navajo students are coming from low-income families."  Here's the website:  http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com

 

That's right ... they're the Redskins.

[gotbeer]

Might as well ban Fighting Irish.  I mean, how stupid is it to characterize a race as short green fighters.  

 

Then again, Yankees is also a derogatory term to much of the world, and probably the south.  

 

Both should also be gone from the patent office.

[19HALO71]

^^^ Yes!!! Change the Yankee name!!! Please!!!

[hopkinsHalo]

The name "Redskins" is disgusting and of course it should be changed, by whatever means someone is capable of changing it. You guys can throw around whatever half-assed logical fallacies and red herrings you like in order to dodge that moral clarity, but you only look foolish. 

 

It's disgusting not only because it derogates millions of Americans, it's disgusting because it suggests that the rest of the country continues to enjoy a racist indifference to its own history. Of course reconciling oneself with that history and its legacies is not easy because the nation's founding act was genocide (and its founding institution slavery). But it's still gross to watch people choose racist imagery over moral consciousness. It's embarrassing to live in such a country. (The appropriate analogue, but the way, is not "Yankess" or "Fighing Irish"; the appropriate analogue would be a German soccer team named the "Leipzig Yid-Lids.")

 

And its embarrassing to realize one reads a board full of smug white dudes who think the the fact that "Redskins" has been around for decades means it's benign -- or that the government should let well enough alone because the regulation of its commodities is more sacred than the dignity of its citizens.

 

The only thing about all this more disgusting than "Redskins,"  in other words, is having read and hear all the racist babbling of the venal "majority" of sports fans still attempting to veil their own view of reality. 

Edited June 20, 2014 by hopkinsHalo

[Dave Saltzer]

What no one is really talking about is the most offensive part of the team .  .  . the fact that so much wealth has grown around Washington DC to make the Redskins one of the most valuable and lucrative sports franchises. Now that is offensive!

[Amazing Larry]

The name "Redskins" is disgusting and of course it should be changed, by whatever means someone is capable of changing it. You guys can throw around whatever half-assed logical fallacies and red herrings you like in order to dodge that moral clarity, but you only look foolish. 

 

It's disgusting not only because it derogates millions of Americans, it's disgusting because it suggests that the rest of the country continues to enjoy a racist indifference to its own history. Of course reconciling oneself with that history and its legacies is not easy because the nation's founding act was genocide (and its founding institution slavery). But it's still gross to watch people choose racist imagery over moral consciousness. It's embarrassing to live in such a country. (The appropriate analogue, but the way, is not "Yankess" or "Fighing Irish"; the appropriate analogue would be a German soccer team named the "Leipzig Yid-Lids.")

 

And its embarrassing to realize one reads a board full of smug white dudes who think the the fact that "Redskins" has been around for decades means it's benign -- or that the government should let well enough alone because the regulation of its commodities is more sacred than the dignity of its citizens.

 

The only thing about all this more disgusting than "Redskins,"  in other words, is having read and hear all the racist babbling of the venal "majority" of sports fans still attempting to veil their own view of reality.

You must be a blast at parties.

[HaloCory22]

This topic is stupid. PC world being PC. 

[ELEVEN]

The name "Redskins" is disgusting and of course it should be changed, by whatever means someone is capable of changing it. You guys can throw around whatever half-assed logical fallacies and red herrings you like in order to dodge that moral clarity, but you only look foolish. 

 

It's disgusting not only because it derogates millions of Americans, it's disgusting because it suggests that the rest of the country continues to enjoy a racist indifference to its own history. Of course reconciling oneself with that history and its legacies is not easy because the nation's founding act was genocide (and its founding institution slavery). But it's still gross to watch people choose racist imagery over moral consciousness. It's embarrassing to live in such a country. (The appropriate analogue, but the way, is not "Yankess" or "Fighing Irish"; the appropriate analogue would be a German soccer team named the "Leipzig Yid-Lids.")

 

And its embarrassing to realize one reads a board full of smug white dudes who think the the fact that "Redskins" has been around for decades means it's benign -- or that the government should let well enough alone because the regulation of its commodities is more sacred than the dignity of its citizens.

 

The only thing about all this more disgusting than "Redskins,"  in other words, is having read and hear all the racist babbling of the venal "majority" of sports fans still attempting to veil their own view of reality. 

Smug. White. Dudes.

 

Judgemental

Rascist

Sexist

 

You were able to neutralize the point you were attempting to make in the span of only 3 words.

Well played, Judge Mental.

[happybat4]

This is so stupid

The team name is been the same for what 50 years?

All of a sudden people are offended

Some Native American groups have been offended the whole time. Nobody listed though until now

[happybat4]

I think the Cleveland Indians is the worst. For one, Indians itself is not the correct term. Indians are from South Asia. Secondly, their logo is horrible.

[Dave Saltzer]

I want to be clear that I am not calling anyone racist. I'm not even saying the owner or the fans change the name. I'm just saying that the government does not have an interest in protecting racially offensive trademarks.

[Blarg]

Is this one of those words that only offensive if non-Native Americans use it?  This school for instance, "The school is located on the Navajo Reservation and is a public school. We have nearly 100% Navajo students are coming from low-income families."  Here's the website:  http://rmusdhs.ss4.sharpschool.com

 

That's right ... they're the Redskins.

 

Obviously Hopkins refused to click on your link before going on the warpath.

[Blarg]

I wonder if the Cleveland Browns are in jeopardy or are they just referring to the product at the bottom of a toilet with that name?

Edited June 20, 2014 by Eric Notti

[jshep]

I wonder if the Cleveland Browns are in jeopardy or are they just referring to the product at the bottom of a toilet with that name?

 

Well the latter would definitely be more fitting for that franchise.

[nando714]

I wonder if the Cleveland Browns are in jeopardy or are they just referring to the product at the bottom of a toilet with that name?

They are referring to us Hispanics and anyone of brown skin color.

Where do I sign the petition

[JAHV76]

What's next atheist's are going to ban going to Angels games?

[hopkinsHalo]

You guys need a logic class. And a history class.

 

If it happened to be the case on that a society of atheists had conducted a couple hundred years of genocidal ethnic cleansing in order to remove a society of religious people while using the term "Angels" to degrade them....then, yes, of course our team's name would also be a disgusting offense to the basic ideas about dignity on which secular society depends.

[jshep]

What's next atheist's are going to ban going to Angels games?

 

Yeah, I'm not seeing how this is analogous to the Redskins situation in the slightest.

[Tank]

Redskins is as offensive as calling a women's soccer team the Las Vegas Bitches or the New Orleans Whores. Whether it offends few or a lot doesn't matter as it's a term used in a derogatory way by white Americans against an entire group of people, people they ended screwing over time after time after time.

While the DC football team may have a long history in American sports, the derogatory, racist, and insulting treatment of native Americans goes back hundreds of years, and as such, that's a trump card the football team can't match.

[ABC]

Would anyone here call Native Americans "redskins" in a conversation? It doesn't seem to bad on the scale of malice for racial slurs. It reminds of me of Asians being called 'chinamen'. Not cool these days and a hundred years ago it was meant to be derogatory, same as 'redskins'.  

[wopphil]

Aren't they a sovereign people? Don't they want to be recognized as independent and not interefered with by our government? Don't they want their own laws so that they can take certain advantages (like operating casinos)? Why, then, do they have any right to be offended by the names of sports franchises outside their territories, and why do any of us give a shit what they think?

This is beyond absurd. More of the same crap from this horrible administration (which, by the way, openly and proudly befriends Jay-Z, which in Cherokee means "he who loves to use derogatory n-word term.")