Ruling lets team keep Redskins' trademark
A victory over the whiners for once:
"The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who contend that the football team's trademark is racially offensive. The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main question of racism at the center of the case. Instead, it upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality.
Redskins attorney Bob Raskopf said millions have been spent on the Redskins brand, and the team would have suffered great economic loss if it had lost the trademark registrations. "It's a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner Dan Snyder," he said.
The court agreed that the seven American Indians waited too long to challenge the trademark first issued in 1967. They initially won - the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999 - but they've suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts since then.
U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned that decision in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued. The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Judge Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1 year old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time.
Judge Kollar-Kotelly issued a new ruling last summer that rejected that argument. She wrote that the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore waited almost eight years after coming of age to join the lawsuit.
The judge did not address whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist. She wrote that her decision was not based on the larger issue of "the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names." A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld that decision Friday.
Source
10 comments:
Well, it is somewhat of a victory for the team, albeit a technical one. Personally, i don't see the validity in a charge of racism, then again, i'm not an Indian. But one could make a valid argument in that, no other ethnic group is portrayed in this manner. Can you imagine the fallout from having a black man's face as a team logo, and calling themselves The NY Blacks?
Or the NY Crack Heads
For those of you that are not Redskins fans, or football fans for that matter, the Washington Redskins have been in the top ten, if not the top five, professional football teams in terms of sales of team merchandising for years. So if someone were to come along and have a court deny the Redskins the trademark to their logo, who do you think might profit by that?
Besides, when you hear the word 'redskin' do you really think of an American Indian? Other then the football team, I think of potatoes. Mmmm redskin potatoes.
Generally teams named after people and animals are named because of strength and power (exception: the mighty ducks). It should be seen as a compliment. Anonymous 4:01 what about the Fighting Irish, Yankees, Spartans, Trojans (Greek), and Vikings. And I don't see the meat packers union complaining to Green Bay, or complaints about Boilermakers, Steelers, Cowboys, Pirates, Buccaneers, and Patriots. I wish my tax dollars were being spent solving problems that are actually important.
Spartans - All Dead
Trojans - All Dead
Vikings - All Dead
Packers - Not an ethnic group
Steelers - What the hell is a steeler? Some kind of thief or a steel worker? Either way, not an ethnic group
Cowboys - Not an ethnic group
Pirates - Not an ethnic group
Buccaneers - See Pirates
Patriots - Not an ethnic group
the New Zealand All Blacks is a rugby team
all blacksthere is no fallout from that
Fighting Irish however IS and ethnic group and one of the stereotypes for Irish is that they love to fight.
Of course I suppose there's a few people of Irish descent who are probably trying to foreclose that name too.
the Irish have a huge chip on their collective shoulder that they try to dissolve with copious amounts of whiskey - tho' with little success!
ummm...what actual law or offense to the constitution were they arguing for?
Must have been that pesky, 'thou shall not offend anyone for anything' clause that I can't seem to locate for the life of me.
~darko
"Packers" Short for Fudge Packers. Definitely a protected class.
"Steelers" a type of dildo, also protected.
"Trojans" no comment.
Post a Comment