Skip to comments.Justices say law on offensive trademarks is unconstitutional
Posted on 06/19/2017 8:02:07 AM PDT by COBOL2Java
WASHINGTON (AP) The Supreme Court on Monday struck down part of a law that bans offensive trademarks in a ruling that is expected to help the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name.
The justices ruled that the 71-year-old trademark law barring disparaging terms infringes free speech rights.
The ruling is a victory for the Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but the case was closely watched for the impact it would have on the separate dispute involving the Washington football team.
Slants founder Simon Tam tried to trademark the band name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the ground that it disparages Asians. A federal appeals court in Washington later said the law barring offensive trademarks is unconstitutional.
The Redskins made similar arguments after the trademark office ruled in 2014 that the name offends American Indians and canceled the teams trademark. A federal appeals court in Richmond put the teams case on hold while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in the Slants case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
Here we go Sla-ants, here we go !
The Supreme Fart? Oh, my.
There’s a band called the Crackers made up entirely of white people.......
There’s a band called U2 made up entirely of white people, too ... but I have no idea what relevance that has to this conversation. :-P
There is no Constitutional right to not be offended, who knew?
Apparently they still haven’t found what they were looking for....
And I spent 19 years in the DC area hearing and reading about this as it has percolated. For every Indian someone trots out as not being offended, there are others who are. No one would name a time N* so why Redskins?
A gentle reminder of how liberals work: nothing is ever settled until it is settled the way liberals want it settled, and then it is settled. This will not make the issue go away, unless and until SCOTUS rules on this issue the way liberals want them to rule. Let us always be at the ready.
“No one would name a time N* so why Redskins?”
BTW the vote was 8-0 but I can’t find out who did not vote.
I hear you but who exactly gets to decide what is offensive??
Where are lines drawn? If Redskins is offensive, then based on these criteria, Boston Celtics is offensive. So is Minnesota Vikings. Both are ethnic nicknames.
We could also ask, how is it that Washington Redskins is offensive today, but was not offensive in 1950? What changed?
I remember there being a ‘90s band by the name of Soda Pop F*ck You...
I’m not kidding. It was in a music catalog a guy at work had. Looking back on it, I wonder why that’s not hate speech. How ‘bout it, Gloria (Alred)? What’s not to like?
I’m sure the 0 likely forgot she’s on the SCOTUS.
No one cares where you lived. The problem is you’re a snowflake that’s never grown up.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.