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 team’s trademark. A federal appeals court in Richmond put the team’s case on hold while waiting for the Supreme Court to rule in the Slants case.
(Excerpt) Read more at wtop.com ...
Carlsbad, NM
High school nickname is “The Cavemen”.
Why hasn’t GEICO been there?
And nobody complained about the rappers NWA?
Oh no. You're "offended." Maybe shut your hole and just walk away from the Redskins then? Just a suggestion.
The rule of law doesn't exist to safeguard your delicate sensibilities.
My Indian relatives, several, and American Indian friends, several, definitely disagree with you. But whatever.
I see you and your liberal friend were not well accepted here.
You ought to find a liberal site Reno and go there.
It’s a bitch when you are terminally offended for political purposes.
But, whatever...
Reno:
Have you been assigned and designated to be the protector of language for the [native American] Indian? +
By “whose and whom” have you been so designated? Please, sir, name-names and tribal associations.
Or, do you simply defend politically correct linguistics that don’t correspond with your concept of “offensive language”?
You reference “my Indian relatives” as well as [American] Indian friends. Who might those be?
I imagine an XXX-rated album cover...”Inside GloriaAlred”
That was Klang in Help!
This whole discussion is a bit silly but always surprising that the personal approach people take instead of discussing the merits, having a real discussion instead of insults and inuendo and trying to bully people off the site.
So, let me ask you this. If using disparaging names, and symbols and flags are okay--because they don't offend you and you want to not worry about others--then I presume you were perfectly fine with some skinheads out flying the confederate and nazi flags and do Heil Hitler salutes. Maybe they live in the DC area, so they'll wear Redskin memorabilia, put pig snouts on their faces, and Indian headdress. Guess that is okay with you? Seems so by what you write.
Well, I think it is not. Maybe I'm older, more conservative, or whatever, but to me it is disrespectful and ignorant. There is no upside. What is someone trying to prove except that they can be boorish. That's not conservative and I really hate when people claim being conservative and go around wrapping themselves in offensive things, even if to just prove a point. It is not helpful to conservative causes, it taints everyone.
But whatever, you and others will do what you'll do. Just ignore me if you don't like calling me on it. You're not going to bully me, dissuade me from my views, or change how I and others think of conservativism.
Sorry...Your politically correct communism is showing thru.
But, what ever.
The Trademark Lawyer PC Troll brigade takes it in the wallet.
I’m crying buckets of tears... BUCKETS I TELL YOU!
Money should separate what society tolerates and what it doesn’t in terms of being offended. That’s an easy one. If a team choose to pick that name nobody would go to the games, no city would use public funds, no businesses would actually do any sponsorships.
Plus Redskins isn’t used as a negative term, there is no way you could get away with that using the N word. Unless it was a Black owner, all black owners, and besides then what, nobody white could ever say it, we would have to call it that N word team. It would be like Prince changing his name to a symbol. It would be.. “The team formerly named the N word”.
A city has a right to remove a monument but they could not prevent you from putting up a monument on your front lawn.
NWA was formed in the late 80’s, you are about 30 years late with that comment.
Was originally the 11th amendment, but Madison’s computer accidentally deleted it.
Wait until someone names their company exactly like yours and then claim to be your company. If there weren’t trademark laws then I take the issue into my own hands. Yes, this is going on right now with the company I work for.
I am free market guy and the trademark laws help consumers and prevent scoundrels from profiting on your name.
I'm fine with trademark. My comment had to do with boundaries on it, and did not advocate eliminating trademark. It pointed out that even if the feds refused to register a mark, that does not kill the mark because common law protection still exists, and state registration isn't cut off.
I'm also fine with the SCOTUS decision - I just think the reason they gave is a pretext for avoiding the question of "offensive," in trademark context.
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.