A win for the Redskins

Posted at 3:22 PM on November 16, 2009 by Bob Collins (4 Comments)
Filed under: Crime and Justice, Sports

The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to get involved with anything having to do with this question: Is this offensive?

The Court today declined to revive a lawsuit on behalf of Native American activists who claimed that because the Washington Redskins' name and logo are offensive, it should not have trademark protections.

The case has a Minnesota connection. William Means, a Minneapolis resident, was one of six Native Americans who filed suit. Local attorney Stephen Baird was the one who originally argued the point before the U. S. Patent and Trademark office, which subsequently ruled against the Redskins. But district courts and the appeals court said Native Americans waited far too long to bring the case, especially since the football team has been around since the 1930s. (Trivia: It may be the only time where a sports' team's decency was judged partly on the basis of a case over Turtle Wax.)

Trademark law prohibits registration of a name that may disparage people or -- as the law says brings them into contempt, or disrepute.

When it was filed, it opened up a new front in the fight against Native American sports logos and team names. Instead of appealing to the teams' sensibilities and sense of decency, it threatened their wallets. Losing the trademark would've cost the Redskins a fortune, and most certainly would've forced them to change both their name and their logo. In fact, predictions at the time suggested that the mere threat of the lawsuit would accomplish that. It didn't.

Three judges with the U. S. Patent and Trademark office initially ruled against the Redskins, but district courts and the appeals court said Native Americans waited far too long to bring the case, especially since the football team has been around since the 1930s.

Recommended Reading: The Native American Mascots Controversy (h/t: Stephanie Weiss)

---

Comments (4)

I am still amazed that no one (to my knowledge) hs ever made a stink about the name of the New York Yankees. There are parts of the country where that word is a vile epithet.

Parts of the deep south for example. And Boston [g].

I am not saying anyone should (or shouldn't) gripe about it. Just amazed at the inconsistency.

Posted by JohnnyZoom | November 18, 2009 8:36 AM

---

As a son of New England, I've never met anybody who considered Yankee to be a vile epithet. At least not by Yankees. The south? I can't explain the south.

Posted by Bob Collins | November 18, 2009 9:09 AM

---

I can vouch for the south. As my wife likes to say, "to some, the war is not over".

And I am finding out lately on this blog that I am not good at translating humor and hyperbole to the net. Two words should suffice:

Red Sox

Posted by JohnnyZoom | November 18, 2009 1:39 PM

---

"RED SOX"

Slowly....I.... turn....step... by.... step....

Posted by Bob Collins | November 18, 2009 1:42 PM

---

Post a comment

The following HTML tags are allowed in your comments:
+ Bold: <b>Text</b>
+ Italic: <i>Text</i>
+ Link: <a href="http://url" target="_blank">Link</a>
Fields marked with * are required.

Name*:

E-mail Address*:

URL:

Remember personal info?

Comments*:

Comment Preview appears above this form upon pressing the "preview" button. Edit your comment and press "preview" again, until you are satisfied with your comment.

Your comment may not appear on the blog until several minutes after it was submitted.

• E-mail this page
• Print this page
• Tweet this page
• Share this

Services

• Hourly Newscast
• HD Radio
• iPhone App / Mobile
• E-mail newsletters
• RSS feeds
• Podcasts
• Submit your photos
• Videos
• Weather
• Most e-mailed stories