NFL 2014

[Chimpy]

The last one was supposedly some weird technicality based on the age of the people bringing the suit. I don't think that will fly today.

Yes, they said the complaint filers waited too long after they turned 18 to file, thus they threw out the case. This was the first time that they actually reviewed it on the merits of the arguments.

[Lakov_Sanite]

That prior case was also 15 years ago and just about every landscape legal or otherwise has changed since then.

[Paelos]

The last one was supposedly some weird technicality based on the age of the people bringing the suit. I don't think that will fly today.

I don't think this one will fly either. It was a divided ruling even with the judges, in which the dissenting judge noted that the case arguments were the same as the prior case. Technicalities aside, I think the precedent of forcing trademarks due to pressure like this is a bad thing. You can get a private company to make changes based on boycotts, contacting advertisers, and going about it by making a change to their wallet. This is a workaround by people who don't have enough support to actually do those things. Also, even the Native American community is divided on this issue.

But even if the case gets upheld, the Redskins don't have to change the name. They could fight the merchandizing issues in other ways.

EDIT: Also from the ruling itself, the reason the last case was thrown out was two-fold "The TTAB’s finding of disparagement is not supported by substantial evidence and must be reversed. The decision should also be reversed because the doctrine of laches precludes consideration of the case."

Even if the case isn't supported due to the minority laches issue, which the case document today addresses, they didn't address the issue of substantial evidence which created the first issue. I don't think it's as easy to prove that the term, the logo, the usage, the history of the word, the etymology of the word falls under the bounds of the law.

[Paelos]

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/06/19/heres-why-an-intellectual-property-lawyer-says-the-redskins-losing-trademark-registration-might-only-matter-a-little-or-not-at-all/

Here's a helpful article with references from a trademark lawyer on the case, with some analysis.

[HaemishM]

And frankly, I don't want them to throw out the name. In the case of the football team, if you're offended by the name, you have every right as an American to boycott their merchandize, games, etc. Similarly if you're offended by music that uses racial slurs, you have the right to not buy that music. At its core, the Redskins are an entertainment organization. Nothing more.

So by that logic if there was a team named the N Words, you'd be fine with that, because after all, people can boycott the team.

No, I think Dan Synder is being even more of a cockknob than he normally is with this one. There's literally no good reason NOT to change the name. Branding? Please, the NFL is the second most publicized sport in the fucking world, and the most publicized sport in the US. Within one month of a name change, the only people who wouldn't know about the name change would be the fucking OJ Simpson Jury. The amount of good, free publicity behind a name change would be a BOON for that team, and if his marketers did it right, the merch sales alone would make up for any loss they might have had because of the change. There is no reason to keep the name since all that accomplishes now is pissing people off and getting lots of bad press - all to keep the name of a team that the owner didn't name. It's obstinate and stupid.

[Paelos]

So by that logic if there was a team named the N Words, you'd be fine with that, because after all, people can boycott the team.

Yes, actually. NWA the rap group is trademarked. Should we toss that out as well?

[01101010]

No, I think Dan Synder is being even more of a cockknob than he normally is with this one. There's literally no good reason NOT to change the name. Branding? Please, the NFL is the second most publicized sport in the fucking world, and the most publicized sport in the US. Within one month of a name change, the only people who wouldn't know about the name change would be the fucking OJ Simpson Jury. The amount of good, free publicity behind a name change would be a BOON for that team, and if his marketers did it right, the merch sales alone would make up for any loss they might have had because of the change. There is no reason to keep the name since all that accomplishes now is pissing people off and getting lots of bad press - all to keep the name of a team that the owner didn't name. It's obstinate and stupid.

Bad press is still press. The longer he keeps them in the news, the more eyes he has the attention of - because that team of his certainly doesn't elicit any looks, at least not after last year's exposure of RGIII as pedestrian. So ride it out as long as you can then change it to something else and ride that out a little longer before we get back to having the team being nothing more than the opponent of another fan's team.

[HaemishM]

So by that logic if there was a team named the N Words, you'd be fine with that, because after all, people can boycott the team.

Yes, actually. NWA the rap group is trademarked. Should we toss that out as well?

Surely you can see the difference between an oppressed minority group grabbing hold of their derogatory name as a means of wrenching power from the system that oppressed them and a rich ass white oligarch holding onto the oppressive name his race has used to denigrate another race? I mean, I know you're not that fucking dense so you surely are just trying to make a really bad argument about two completely different types of fruit.

[Paelos]

Surely you can see the difference between an oppressed minority group grabbing hold of their derogatory name as a means of wrenching power from the system that oppressed them and a rich ass white oligarch holding onto the oppressive name his race has used to denigrate another race? I mean, I know you're not that fucking dense so you surely are just trying to make a really bad argument about two completely different types of fruit.

Of course I see the difference, but the people behind this kind of lawsuit don't. You're also forgetting that this kind of thing leads to other groups trying similar things. If a private trademark like this can be found offensive well after the fact, and a prior case, you're opening a lot of doors you don't want opened.

Don't misinterpret my intent here. I don't care if Dan Snyder decides to change the name on his own, or from pressure inside the NFL or sponsors. I do care about the courts forcing him to do it almost what, 60 years after the fact? You can handwave branding all you want, but those brands are gigantic dollars in goodwill on company books. Those merchandizing rights are a major part of the business. I don't like the idea of the courts deciding the issue, because I don't like the precedent in other forms of entertainment.

[01101010]

So by that logic if there was a team named the N Words, you'd be fine with that, because after all, people can boycott the team.

Yes, actually. NWA the rap group is trademarked. Should we toss that out as well?

Surely you can see the difference between an oppressed minority group grabbing hold of their derogatory name as a means of wrenching power from the system that oppressed them and a rich ass white oligarch holding onto the oppressive name his race has used to denigrate another race? I mean, I know you're not that fucking dense so you surely are just trying to make a really bad argument about two completely different types of fruit.

You are talking about lawyers arguing a case. There is no morality to be found here, just the semantics of the case. This will set precedent in the courts and may have unintended consequences down the road is all I am getting from the monkey... not support for keeping the name.

And you know there are people who take great offense to the name NWA. 

[HaemishM]

but those brands are gigantic dollars in goodwill on company books. Those merchandizing rights are a major part of the business.

The problem with that argument is that the NFL is so insanely well-marketed that those merchandising rights don't lose one fucking dime of value by the change of a mascot name. In some cases, that value goes UP by a change in name (see the Tampa Bay Devil Rays switch to the Rays).

[Mithas]

Don't misinterpret my intent here. I don't care if Dan Snyder decides to change the name on his own, or from pressure inside the NFL or sponsors. I do care about the courts forcing him to do it almost what, 60 years after the fact? You can handwave branding all you want, but those brands are gigantic dollars in goodwill on company books. Those merchandizing rights are a major part of the business. I don't like the idea of the courts deciding the issue, because I don't like the precedent in other forms of entertainment.

They ruled similarly in 1999, but it was overturned. I don't have anything to cite, but I have heard they have done this sort of thing in the past.

[Nevermore]

but those brands are gigantic dollars in goodwill on company books. Those merchandizing rights are a major part of the business.

The problem with that argument is that the NFL is so insanely well-marketed that those merchandising rights don't lose one fucking dime of value by the change of a mascot name. In some cases, that value goes UP by a change in name (see the Tampa Bay Devil Rays switch to the Rays).

I would think a successful sports team could make quite a bit of money from a rebrand through the sale of new merchandise, at least in the short term.  The constant uniform changes and 'throwback' uniforms and whatnot in football are purely to sell more merchandise.  Plus, Washington should be able to come up with a new Native American themed name that's not offensive so they can keep their current logo and colors if they so choose.  Snyder is basically just being a dick because he likes the name and doesn't want to change it despite it being a racial slur.

[Paelos]

And despite the fact he's being a dick, I believe that's well within his rights as the owner.

[Sjofn]

I do care about the courts forcing him to do it almost what, 60 years after the fact?

Times change, dude. I have absolutely no problem with the courts going "wait a second, that is bullshit." You know, like they do relatively often about other shit we're marginally more enlightened about.

[Paelos]

When it's about a public issue? Absolutely. Times do change and people rely on courts to protect their public rights in the current environment.

But see, here's the thing. This is a private entertainment industry. This isn't about regulation, or employee discrimination, or whatever. It's about a naming trademark issue. When an issue is obvious, companies bow under pressure. They don't want to upset customers, they don't want to alienate vendors, etc. In this case, none of that has happened. You need to allow society to follow that model and make the change.

The courts are NOT the venue for this kind of thing. And effectively the trademark courts can't actually make him change anything. They don't have that power.

[Sjofn]

Everyone who has had the power to make this right has shown they can't have nice things. Fuck 'em.

[Paelos]

Everyone who has had the power to make this right has shown they can't have nice things. Fuck 'em.

Sorry but that's not how this country works. Freedoms cut a lot of ways, but you would hate life if they didn't.

[Sjofn]

bawwwww why won't you tolerate the intolerance that also makes a fuckload of money waaaaaah

[Sjofn]

More seriously, this IS a public issue. The NFL does not operate in a vaccuum. Businesses are not little kingdoms that can do whatever the fuck they want because of magical capitalism fairies. I do not at all mind courts deciding "you had plenty of time to not be assholes, but you're still assholes, so fuck you." Your handwringing about FREEEEEEDOM is not going to change that.

[HaemishM]

Businesses are not little kingdoms that can do whatever the fuck they want because of magical capitalism fairies.

Unfortunately, the NFL is a goddamn billionaires club with a monopoly exemption that lets them do this about a lot of things. Which is why Snyder can do this shit without real consequence. Also, he can do it because Native Americans have so little actual voice in government or society that the same kind of racial insult as the N Word can get used casually by a cockbag team owner and normally rational people defend his right to do so as "freedom."

[Paelos]

More seriously, this IS a public issue. The NFL does not operate in a vaccuum. Businesses are not little kingdoms that can do whatever the fuck they want because of magical capitalism fairies. I do not at all mind courts deciding "you had plenty of time to not be assholes, but you're still assholes, so fuck you." Your handwringing about FREEEEEEDOM is not going to change that.

It's a public issue in the sense you can stop supporting it. Other than that, you're dead wrong.

[Trippy]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

[Paelos]

Also, he can do it because Native Americans have so little actual voice in government or society that the same kind of racial insult as the N Word can get used casually by a cockbag team owner and normally rational people defend his right to do so as "freedom."

You're arguing for US Courts changing something over the emotional response to a word (which they don't really have the power to do anyway, they can only revoke a trademark if at all), then in the same sentence accusing people for suggesting that it's not within the purview of the courts to decide the issue are irrational.

Just pointing that out.

[Paelos]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

The NFL has it. The team doesn't. The issue is with the team, not the NFL.

[Ingmar]

It's a trademark case, not a free speech case. Our "freedoms" don't really enter into the discussion.

And in fact, nobody on the anti-Redskin-name side is arguing for the courts to change something in this case. The Patent Office has made a ruling based on their own rules. It's the Redskins who are asking the courts to change something.

[Mithas]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

The NFL has it. The team doesn't. The issue is with the team, not the NFL.

The team did ask for $250 million from VA for building a stadium.

[Paelos]

It's a trademark case, not a free speech case. Our "freedoms" don't really enter into the discussion.

And in fact, nobody on the anti-Redskin-name side is arguing for the courts to change something. The Patent Office has made a ruling based on their own rules. It's the Redskins who are asking the courts to change something.

The patent office is made up of official judges in this case to revoke an existed trademark. It's a court, whether you call it one or not. The appeal would be to another court to deny the ruling of the petition as valid. If nothing changed, the trademark would still be valid.

But even if that's the case, you're right it's a trademark case. At best this just makes the Redskins fall back on other laws to enforce their rights, complicating the use. It does nothing to change the name of the team.

[Paelos]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

The NFL has it. The team doesn't. The issue is with the team, not the NFL.

The team did ask for $250 million from VA for building a stadium.

Which the community had a perfect opportunity to deny due to the usage of the name. That would have been an outstanding way to put pressure on Snyder for the change.

[Nevermore]

Which the community had a perfect opportunity to deny due to the usage of the name. That would have been an outstanding way to put pressure on Snyder for the change.

In this I agree with you.

[Sjofn]

Businesses are not little kingdoms that can do whatever the fuck they want because of magical capitalism fairies.

Unfortunately, the NFL is a goddamn billionaires club with a monopoly exemption that lets them do this about a lot of things. Which is why Snyder can do this shit without real consequence. Also, he can do it because Native Americans have so little actual voice in government or society that the same kind of racial insult as the N Word can get used casually by a cockbag team owner and normally rational people defend his right to do so as "freedom."

Which is part of the reason I am like "fuck yeah, use the shit out of the courts as much as you can!"

[Goumindong]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

No they don't. The only tax exempt portion is the pass through revenue portion, which is standard to many organizations.

There is also no monopoly exemption (See the XFL trying and also the NCAA exists right now as competition to the NFL)

[Ingmar]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

No they don't. The only tax exempt portion is the pass through revenue portion, which is standard to many organizations.

There is also no monopoly exemption (See the XFL trying and also the NCAA exists right now as competition to the NFL)

This article would seem to disagree:

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2013/10/how-the-nfl-fleeces-taxpayers/309448/

[Trippy]

The NFL has special tax-exempt status -- it's explicitly written into our tax code. This is a public issue.

No they don't. The only tax exempt portion is the pass through revenue portion, which is standard to many organizations.

There is also no monopoly exemption (See the XFL trying and also the NCAA exists right now as competition to the NFL)

The dues are tax-exempt too:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/story/_/id/9342479/examining-nfl-tax-exempt-status-challenged-us-senator-tom-coburn

[Paelos]

Yeah the NFL is tax exempt, the teams aren't. It's a weird situation, and one that abuses our current NFP rules (which I hope to see revised in my lifetime).