Redskins cite list of ridiculously offensive trademarks in team's court appeal

Smitty · Nov 4, 2015

And you thought naming a team the Washington Redskins was offensive.

Wait until you get a load of the trademarks protected by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office that the team's lawyers are citing in their appeal of last year's Trademark Trial and Appeal Board ruling — and a federal judge's subsequent upholding — that Redskins is too "disparaging" a term to trademark.

The Washington Post first reported the appeal, Deadspin has the vulgar details and the team's filing can be read in full here , but let's just list a few of the trademarks protected by the PTO and cited by lawyers:

— TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing
— DUMB BLONDE beer
— MIDGET-MAN condoms and inflatable sex dolls
— SHANK THE B!T@H board game
— CRACKA AZZ SKATEBOARDS
— WTF WORK? online forum
— GRINGO STYLE SALSA
— WHITE GIRL WITH A BOOTY apparel
— OH! MY NAPPY HAIR shampoos
— BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM wallets

Again, these are 10 of the less offensive terms Redskins lawyers cited in a ridiculously long list that was capped by a fantastic final sentence: "Word limits prevent us from listing more."

The lawyers point in listing all of these? If there are thousands of offensive trademarks among millions, then why are the Redskins being singularly targeted? If the PTO wants to start regulating the perceived level of offensiveness of each trademark, that's a slippery slope that one could easily see ending up as a violation of one's First Amendment rights.

On the other hand, it's equally absurd that the Redskins are arguing, not that their team's nickname isn't offensive, but rather that their trademark deserves the same respect as these other offensive trademarks.

This is the unintentional comedy that results when government agencies and lawyers share a room.

Carp · Nov 4, 2015

Wow. This is what a child does.

boozeman · Nov 4, 2015

This belongs in the :lol

@ the Redskins thread so it is preserved going forward. Get on point, jeez.

Cotton · Nov 4, 2015

boozeman said:
This belongs in the @ the Redskins thread so it is preserved going forward. Get on point, jeez.

If only someone on this board had the power to move posts around. Man, that would be cool.

townsend · Nov 4, 2015

Seems like a fair point though. Offensiveness is fairly subjective. If all those trademarks hold up, the decision to take away the Redskins trademark rights seems like singling out a prominent business for political points.

Personally I think All intellectual property is horseshit.

boozeman · Nov 4, 2015

Iamtdg said:
If only someone on this board had the power to move posts around. Man, that would be cool.

That is what junior mods are for.

Cowboysrock55 · Nov 4, 2015

townsend said:
Seems like a fair point though. Offensiveness is fairly subjective. If all those trademarks hold up, the decision to take away the Redskins trademark rights seems like singling out a prominent business for political points.

Let me first say I hate the PC bullshit and fake offended people over the Redskins name. I don't think they should change their name at all or be forced to at least. If they find it financially profitable to change their name, then go ahead and do it.

With that being said their argument sucks. It's not a good legal argument. Pointing out other names that slipped through the cracks isn't a justification. Hell the Redskins had their trademark at one point too.

townsend · Nov 4, 2015

Cowboysrock55 said:
Let me first say I hate the PC bullshit and fake offended people over the Redskins name. I don't think they should change their name at all or be forced to at least. If they find it financially profitable to change their name, then go ahead and do it.

With that being said their argument sucks. It's not a good legal argument. Pointing out other names that slipped through the cracks isn't a justification. Hell the Redskins had their trademark at one point too.

So are judges going to parse through all of these trademarks to ensure no more offensive names are held, based on a totally objective standard. Or will they arbitrarily revoke privately held intellectual property based on the rabble of the masses?

I'm no lawyer, so you're certainly more right than I am from a legal standpoint. It just seems like it's not as much offensiveness as it is being generally disliked. Unless the NAACP and United Negro College Fund are also willing to lose their branding.

Genghis Khan · Nov 4, 2015

I'm by no means a trademark expert, but I do know context is everything. Most of these things are marketed to an audience that is far less likely to get offended.

Marketing generally to a broad sports audience is just a vastly different audience with a lot of residual attention.

Carp · Nov 5, 2015

townsend said:
Seems like a fair point though. Offensiveness is fairly subjective. If all those trademarks hold up, the decision to take away the Redskins trademark rights seems like singling out a prominent business for political points.

Personally I think All intellectual property is horseshit.

I don't care one way or the other about their name, but for the Redskins to compare their name to little known companies is weak sauce. I have not heard of any of those. To point those names out as some kind of rationale is childish.

As an aside...I think Washington could make huge dollars if they changed their name. All the new gear they would sell would be through the roof.

L.T. Fan · Nov 5, 2015

Carp said:
I don't care one way or the other about their name, but for the Redskins to compare their name to little known companies is weak sauce. I have not heard of any of those. To point those names out as some kind of rationale is childish.

As an aside...I think Washington could make huge dollars if they changed their name. All the new gear they would sell would be through the roof.

It would also cost them a lot of money to change their name. It not a simple matter to change out everything that has the team's name and logos on then including signage.

Carp · Nov 5, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
It would also cost them a lot of money to change their name. It not a simple matter to change out everything that has the team's name and logos on then including signage.

They have sponsors for all that stuff. You think they are shelling out money for new jerseys and helmets? Feh. The signage would be covered by Fed Ex, most likely. Changing the logo would not be difficult at all...a 12 year old with Photoshop could do it on a laptop.

Any cost they incur would be minimal to the money they would make. You think all those teams with alternate jerseys and helmets are going out of pocket for that? Not only that, but fans will always buy alternate jerseys to have something different.

dallen · Nov 5, 2015

I still think they should just change their logo to a red skin potato as an FU to everyone

L.T. Fan · Nov 5, 2015

Carp said:
They have sponsors for all that stuff. You think they are shelling out money for new jerseys and helmets? Feh. The signage would be covered by Fed Ex, most likely. Changing the logo would not be difficult at all...a 12 year old with Photoshop could do it on a laptop.

Any cost they incur would be minimal to the money they would make. You think all those teams with alternate jerseys and helmets are going out of pocket for that? Not only that, but fans will always buy alternate jerseys to have something different.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/17/renaming-the-redskins-could-have-a-major-financial/?page=all

Carp · Nov 5, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/oct/17/renaming-the-redskins-could-have-a-major-financial/?page=all

You were sitting on an article from 2013?

I'd be willing to bet their sponsors would be willing to pony up some money to help this process...it would be viewed favorably by activists and whatnot.

“The biggest cost is not developing a new name and mark,” said Allen Adamson, managing director of Landor Associates, whose past clients include the NFL. “The biggest cost by far is applying it to all the points of touch that a brand like the Redskins exists on: merchandise, signage, training facilities and the stadium. That would be several million dollars, probably under $5 million. They can do it aggressively in six months, sometimes even less. Sometimes it can take a couple years to do the transition.”

Even double that amount would be a drop in the bucket for a team Forbes considers the eighth most valuable franchise in all of sport and third most valuable football franchise.

This is why I think they could make money off of licensing and whatnot.

But once the smoke clears, we could see the franchise emerge even stronger than ever before.

“The sports landscape is becoming a lot more socially aware and conscious,” said Jessop. “If you look at what happened in the NBA, for instance, when Jason Collins became the first openly gay player to play professional sports in America, even though he was only averaging a few minutes per game, his jersey was the highest selling jersey on the NBA’s Web site. What that shows to me is there are people who might not be the most dedicated sports fans but they get involved in the social justice stories involved in sports. If the Redskins do change their name there could be an uptick in sales.”

L.T. Fan · Nov 5, 2015

Carp said:
You were sitting on an article from 2013?

I'd be willing to bet their sponsors would be willing to pony up some money to help this process...it would be viewed favorably by activists and whatnot.

This is why I think they could make money off of licensing and whatnot.

It's still relevant and you are picking out a few things but the overall gist is there is a lot of cost potentially for them to change their name.

Carp · Nov 5, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
It's still relevant and you are picking out a few things but the overall gist is there is a lot of cost potentially for them to change their name.

Picking out a few things? No, I am simply addressing what you brought up...which is branding and signage costs. I brought up the second piece, because that is what I brought up. Seems clear cut to me.

Genghis Khan · Nov 5, 2015

L.T. Fan said:
It's still relevant and you are picking out a few things but the overall gist is there is a lot of cost potentially for them to change their name.

It's relevant, sure, but it's not prohibitive. The Washington Bullets did it and somehow stayed afloat.

L.T. Fan · Nov 5, 2015

Genghis Khan said:
It's relevant, sure, but it's not prohibitive. The Washington Bullets did it and somehow stayed afloat.

I'm not contending it's going to bankrupt anyone. I am saying it will cost a lot more than than just being a simple deal that Carp thinks will automatically make a lot of money.

L.T. Fan · Nov 5, 2015

Carp said:
Picking out a few things? No, I am simply addressing what you brought up...which is branding and signage costs. I brought up the second piece, because that is what I brought up. Seems clear cut to me.

Those were examples but by no means all inclusive. That's why I posted the link.

Redskins cite list of ridiculously offensive trademarks in team's court appeal

DCC 4Life

DCC 4Life

28 Years And Counting...

One-armed Knife Sharpener

Banned

28 Years And Counting...

Super Moderator

Banned

The worst version of myself

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

Senior Tech

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

I'm Easy If You Are

DCC 4Life

The worst version of myself

I'm Easy If You Are

I'm Easy If You Are