Putting this here instead of EE just in case.
The US Patent Office has cancelled the NFL team’s trademarks. The reason cited (and I agree wholeheartedly) is that the team name is offensive and disparaging to Native Americans.
I think–not totally sure–that this means that ANYONE can now manufacture Redskins products with the logo and typeface and not have to license or pay a royalty.
Assuming there aren’t any other trademarks hidden away, then that’s my take-away as well (and I also whole-heartedly agree with the sentiment).
So, the US Patent Office has the worst of both worlds. They’d grant a patent on oxygen to the first multinational to apply for one, but they will unilaterally apply heavy-handed political correctness regardless of whether the trademark is valid.
Cite? I suspect you’re full of it or don’t understand how patenting works. Perhaps both.
Are patents granted on things that are later found invalid? Sure. Like any agency, mistakes happen, resources are limited, and there’s a fair amount of subjectivity in the process (particularly obviousness). That doesn’t mean that the process is complete nonsense, as you seem to be saying.
Wrong on both counts. Oxygen is not patentable subject matter under 35 USC 101. And “political correctness” has nothing to do with the USPTO’s finding that the Redskin’s mark is invalid. Maybe try reading the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s decision. Or read TMEP 1203.03(b)(i).
. They’d grant a patent on oxygen to the first multinational to apply for one, but they will unilaterally apply heavy-handed political correctness regardless of whether the trademark is valid.
Unilaterally? They’re the patent office. They do everything unilaterally. Also, the whole point of the ruling is that the trademark wasn’t valid:
As explained below, we decide, based on the evidence properly before us, that
these registrations must be cancelled because they were disparaging to Native
Americans at the respective times they were registered, in violation of Section 2(a)
of the Trademark Act of 1946, 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a).
Apparently this happened before and an appeals court tossed it out. I expect Washington will appeal again. It’s likely years before this particular patent issue fully plays out.
Edit: the last challenge took 10 years to finally get to appeal…so yeah this probably doesn’t change much.
I realize that responding to you is similar to telling the dog to get off the couch (actually, the dog responds in a way that at least feigns some glimmer of understanding) but I’ll try anyway.
The Patent Office didn’t just wake up this morning and do this. They were petitioned to do so by Native Americans, reviewed the trademark, and found it in violation of standards by which they are granted and revoked it.
The Washington Redskins are patently offensive.
The dogs I’ve trained would like a word with you, and that word is “off”. ;-) It’s easy to teach a dog to get down from any piece of furniture on command. It’s also possible, though not as simple, to teach them which ones they’re allowed to use and which ones they’re not.
True enough. When comparing the level of understanding between canine intelligence and Vetarnias, I didn’t give the dogs enough credit.
If a trademark is contrary to the Trademark Act, then that trademark is not valid. QED.
But there will, undoubtedly, be a First Amendment rebuke, since you don’t actually have hate speech laws. You could call a team the Mississippi Cotton Pickers and, while decidedly offensive, what would be the rationale for denying it a trademark status if you don’t have anything to prevent hate speech?
As for my remark regarding oxygen, that was meant as an exaggeration; what I had in mind was the kind of patent so vague that it could stifle anyone else coming afterwards from doing anything remotely connected to it, even though it might have been applied by others before the patent was issued. See: patent trolls, one-click shopping, and so on.
Free speech is not engaged. No one is being prevented from calling their team anything they want to call their team. The Mississippi Cotton Pickers are entitled to call their team that if they want, but they can’t obtain a trademark protecting it.
Yeah, it’s really not that hard to understand.
I hadn’t realized that the previous appeal took 10 years but I had heard that the technicality on which the previous ruling was over-turned has since been corrected. If they lose their trademark, the NFL will definitely force them to change the name. Frankly, I’m surprised the NFL hasn’t already forced Synder’s hand on this. He apparently has already trademarked the Washington Warriors which is a much better name.
But in the United States, where it can safely be argued (unfortunately) that money is considered free speech (which is why Citizens United, etc. happened, because we can’t stop all that spending of speech, can we?), the effect of not granting a trademark to an offensive name, for a business, means that a business would then knowingly place itself at a disadvantage, financially, for keeping that name. In that respect, then, to refuse to grant a trademark to a business for no other reason that it is “offensive” (and again, who decides what is offensive and what isn’t?) all but curtails the use of this “offensive” name by a business. Maybe it would have been wiser to call the team something that isn’t offensive to many people, but it’s not the task of the Patent Office to do that kind of advocacy.
If you bothered to read the decision, you’d discover who gets to decide. Hint: it’s not the USPTO
You’re still typing without reading what others post. The Lanham Act specifically excludes “immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter”. (15 USC 1052.) The USPTO is bound by statutory law. 1st Amendment jurisprudence specifically excludes certain types of speech, such as hate speech. Again, stop talking out of your ass.
True, I am just assuming they’ll appeal again and get a stay and it will likely take years before its actually ruled on.