jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (7 posts)

Was the USG Trademark Office Wrong for Rescinding Trademark Rights?

  1. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    Specifically, was the Patent and Trademark Office wrong for rescinding the Washington Redskin's Trademark Rights? Which is a valuable property. Which amounts to taking private property?

    All by a government bureaucracy exercising censorship powers they do not have?

    If is said that the Washington Times used a FOIA, (Freedom of Information Act request), to discover that the Trademark Office had received no documented complaints about the name. True or not - I have not checked. Seems to easily debunked if it were not true.

    So Political Correctness now includes arbitrary bureaucratic censorship. Is that the government you want? Are we at the point where Political Correctness trumps individual property rights?

    Obviously I think this is a wrong decision that will be overturned by the courts - what say you?


    1. wilderness profile image96
      wildernessposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I hope you are right, that it will be overturned (if true).  It is beyond that pale that governmental Political Correctness takes priority over law and everything else.  Or anything else for that matter; it's hard to think of anything less important.

    2. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this

      This is another PC fiasco that while well intentioned by having something offensive to a few rescinded, went horribly wrong. Who decides these things anyway?

      But the few are not the majority and I am sure you will find massive amounts of people who will disagree with the action. Are we to be held captive by a few who think differently than us? The problem is the few have over run the many but the many are too lazy to change it.

  2. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    What, no Dallas Cowboys fans in the forum? I thought they would be the first to affirm the Patent and Trademark Office's decision.


    1. rhamson profile image76
      rhamsonposted 3 years agoin reply to this


  3. GA Anderson profile image82
    GA Andersonposted 3 years ago

    HA! One last bump just to prove what I already know. This is an indefensible Political Correctness move that even the most progressive in these forums don't want to touch with a ten-foot pole.

    ps. would it help if I divulged that thew Oneida Nation leader that is driving this controversy has now designated "redskins as the "R-Word!"

    Really? Really? The R-word?" Geez Louise!


    1. profile image0
      SassySue1963posted 3 years agoin reply to this

      I stayed away from this thread - but since you bumped in I will put in my two cents.

      The history of the word redskin certainly comes from a French origin. As did the N-word as well. Then they were (can't use the word that comes to mind here ) changed. We all know how the N-word changed and was used later. Let me tell you how the word redskin was used.

      When there were bounties - and there were in most states west of the Mississippi - it was used to describe the 'skin the hunters brought in for payment. If you care to google it there is even an announcement in an old newspaper circa 1855 or so. The skins of women & children were paid for as well.

      Later, it was used in exactly the same way as the N-word. A derogatory term.

      So I have some different views on this issue. They are the same views I held about the Sterling incident.

      The NBA had the right to fine him, punish him, suspend him, but I think their rights should have stopped at taking his personal property. Those powers however, fell to the NBA, not the government.

      So I don't think the Trademark Office should be used to persuade the name change.

      I DO think however, that the name should be changed. I think the NFL should force that issue, which would be well within their rights to do so.

      This is not some new PC game - this battle has been going on for three decades now (or even longer, I am only aware that it was ongoing back in 1980's). Why has it been ignored? Simple. Native Americans do not have the voting power.

      Yes, I know the D's are using it now as a political ploy to seem like they give a crap (we all know they really don't) but - perhaps it will see the right thing get done.