Court ruling for a rock band could boost Redskins in trademark case

[alp227]

Source: Washington Post

In a major decision that could bolster the Washington Redskins’ legal defense of its name, a federal appeals court said Tuesday that the U.S. government can’t ban offensive trademarks, arguing that the practice violates the First Amendment.

The ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington came in a case involving an Asian American rock band called the Slants. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office had rejected a trademark for the Oregon-based musicians because it considered its name a slur. But the majority of the 12-judge court concluded that no matter how disparaging the band’s name may be to Asian Americans, the First Amendment still protects the musicians’ speech — “and the speech of other trademark holders.”

The court’s decision is a significant boost to the Redskins in the team’s battle to defend its own trademark protections. In July, a federal judge in Alexandria ordered the cancellation of those trademarks — a decision the team is fighting. The judge had affirmed an earlier ruling by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that the NFL team’s name denigrated Native Americans and was therefore ineligible under the decades-old Lanham Act, which prohibits trademark protection for offensive names.

Read more: https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/court-ruling-for-a-rock-band-could-boost-redskins-in-trademark-case/2015/12/22/08c3fbb2-a8e6-11e5-bff5-905b92f5f94b_story.html

[MADem]

1. I don't consider those two equivalent at all.

"Slant" has multiple meanings--one is a crude slur, but others are not, e.g. Lean, angle, incline, slope, tilt, etc.

Redskin has two meanings--one is a derogatory term for Native peoples, the other describes a potato.

Unless the "Redskins" want to change their logo to a potato, they need to rethink.

[azurnoir]

2. I'm not sure this applies The Slants are an all Asian band their name is a play on that

http://www.theslants.com/about/

[JDPriestly]

6. For social reasons they might be well advised to change the name. For ethical reasons, yes.

But the government can't require them to change it.

The shouldn't need a court order to do the right thing, the courteous thing.

But this decision is very obvious.

It is not the role of government to censor our speech even if we ourselves should be careful in our speech. We should want to do the right thing because we don't want to harm others and their cultural identities.

[Midnight Writer]

3. It shouldn't take a Court ruling for the Redskins' to change their name

It should be a matter of common courtesy. Failing that, it should be a matter of monetary self interest.

I am not holding my breath for any of these.

[davidpdx]

4. No, you shouldn't

I don't see the Washington ********' changing their name anytime soon. As much of a push as there has been it just isn't enough to get it done.

[JDPriestly]

5. This seems pretty obvious to me.

[TipTok]

7. Duh...

[Fortinbras Armstrong]

8. My wife is a serious football fan (Go Packers!)

She refers to the Redskins as the "Washington Racial Slurs"

[Android3.14]

9. The team name is offensive, and the court is correct

There is no paradox here.

[LiberalLovinLug]

10. One is a play on words one is racism

The Slants are an Asian rock band

Niggaz Wit Attitudes is an African American rap band

The Fags rock band have been around for a long time


The Red Skins? Is there some majority at least of native Americans that play for that team? How is this anything like these other cases?

[former9thward]

11. The court doesn't care about who makes up these things.

The court says the government can't withhold trademark status based on whether the government thinks its offensive. That is a First amendment violation. It is exactly like the Redskins.

The Fags rock band have been around for a long time Ahh, the Redskins have been around a lot longer....