Washington Post:
The United States Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins trademark registration, calling the football team’s name “disparaging to Native Americans.”
The landmark case, which appeared before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed.
Obviously, this case could have huge implications. It is expected that owner Dan Snyder will appeal the decision.
The ruling does not mean that the Redskins have to change the name of the team. It does affect whether the team and the NFL can make money from merchandising because it limits the team’s legal options when others use the logos and the name on T shirts, sweatshirts, beer glasses and license plate holders.
In addition, Native Americans have won at this stage before, in 1999. But the team and the NFL won an appeal to U.S. District Court in 2009. The court did not rule on the merits of the case, however, but threw it out, saying that the plaintiffs didn’t have standing to file it. The team is likely to make the same appeal this time. Team officials are expected to make a statement this morning.
From the team:
Bruce Allen, the team’s president and general manager, said as he walked off the practice field Wednesday: “When the statement comes out, you’ll get it.”
Asked whether the Redskins believe they can continue to use their team name under the circumstances, Allen said: “Did you read it?… We’re fine. We’re fine.”
At one point the Redskins were looking to build a stadium just north of Laurel, MD. I thought that would of been the perfect place to move to, especially if they renamed the team to match the name of the town they were moving near. If they did change the name from the Washington Redskins, the name would be the Savage Redskins after the former mill town of Savage, MD. The thought of that name kept me smiling through all the boring community meetings I had to cover during the period of where to move after leaving RFK Stadium.
Just a thought
How exactly is it “disparaging”?
Is “redskin” an insult?
This is going to hit them right in the merchandise sales. Of course they’re going to change it.
“…it limits the team’s legal options when others use the logos and the name on T shirts, sweatshirts, beer glasses and license plate holders.”
Great news for scalpers.
Oops. Is “scalper” a bad word too now?
Now, about the Atlanta Braves and that annoying chant-and-chop …
It’s more of a term from history where a “redskin” was a scalped Native American head used as proof for collecting bounty. However, it’s come to be used as a derogatory term for a Native American in general.
Ugh, that’s ugly.
I thought “redskin” referred to the body paint used by the native warriors.
“Redskin” was a reflection of the color of their skin (in a “they aren’t pasty white like us, or black like our slaves” sort of way). The Wikipedia article specifically address the “redskin = a scalped Native American” etymology as being incorrect; the only example of that use they have is from 1863, despite it having been in use at least a hundred years prior.
Of course it refers to the color of their skin. I’m fairly certain there’s examples of its use from the French & Indian War at the Smithsonian as “red skins”, but I could be mistaken. If true that would be almost exactly 100 years prior to your example.
But, indeed it most likely it did begin as a simple derogatory term about their skin color. Someone whenever thought it clever to refer to the bounty as “redskins”. But, it was widely used as such at one point anyway. My last comment inferred the latter truly came after the former, but that wasn’t my intention. Oops. 🙂