1. Welcome to CowboysZone!  Join us!  Come on!  You know you want to!

Appeals court sides with Redskins on trademark

Discussion in 'Political Zone' started by ConcordCowboy, May 15, 2009.

  1. ConcordCowboy

    ConcordCowboy Mr. Buckeye

    12,747 Messages
    2 Likes Received
    Appeals court sides with Redskins on trademark


    WASHINGTON (AP) - The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who contend the football team's trademark is racially offensive.

    The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main question of racism at the center of the case. Instead, it upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality.

    Redskins attorney Bob Raskopf said millions have been spent on the Redskins brand and the team would have suffered great economic loss if they lost the trademark registrations. "It's a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner Dan Snyder," he said.

    The court agreed that the seven Native Americans waited too long to challenge the trademark first issued in 1967. They initially won — the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999 — but they've suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts since then.

    U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned that decision in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued. The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1-year-old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time.

    Kollar-Kotelly issued a new ruling last summer that rejected that argument. She wrote that the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore waited almost eight years after coming of age to join the lawsuit.

    The judge did not address whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist. She wrote that her decision was not based on the larger issue of "the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names."

    A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld that decision Friday.

    The plaintiffs have a backup plan: A group of six American Indians ranging in age from 18 to 24 filed essentially the same claim two years ago, but the new case has been on hold until this one was resolved.

    "We're hopeful that case will lead us ultimately to a ruling on the merits," said Philip Mause, attorney for the American Indians. "We're very confident about our position on the merits. We think this term is disparaging of Native Americans."

    Raskopf said it's all too late. "The time when the case could have been brought was 1967," he said. "So it's not going to get any easier for anybody to bring the case now."

    http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/...-sides-with-Redskins-on-trademark?FSO2&ATT=MA


    [IMG]
  2. masomenos

    masomenos Less is more

    5,971 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    Ah, that makes sense. It's ok to be racist if there's a lot of money tied up in it.
  3. CowboyPrincess

    CowboyPrincess Priceless

    4,610 Messages
    0 Likes Received
    I hate the Washington Redskins, but I've never had a problem with them being called the Redskins. I think too much gets made out of the names of teams in any sport. And before anyone says anything about my not understanding the problem with it... Both my grandmothers were full blooded Indian and I'm a halfbreed. It's just a word and nothing more

    The same could be said about the Cowboys because of the origin of the cowboy who were originally Mexican or American Indian and were considered lower class even before the white or black cowboys came along after the Civil war

    How about the Chiefs of The Kansas City - Shouldn't they have the same problem that the Redskins have.. The got their name from Indian Chiefs and do we remember the "chop" in the stands for both football and baseball

    Even better.. How about the Cleveland Browns. Who were named after Joe Louis "The Brown Bomber". It was later shortened to Brown's rather than Bombers...Brown referred to his skin color. What if the NAACP went after them....

    What if PETA went after every team named after an animal for some lame brained reason like the Cardinals logo incorrectly depicts the attitude of it's namesake. Or that the Colts are wrong because they are named after a baby horse and get beaten on by other teams and might make people think about harming baby animals... I know that one is far fetched but for argument sake..

    There are much worse things for the Judicial System to be worrying about right now instead of the name of a team and if it's offensive to a few. Anything can be found offensive by someone. If a major majority of a group found it offensive, like 75% of people with Indian heritage, then they may have an problem

    JMO

    It's all ridiculous and needed to end
  4. Temo

    Temo Active Member

    3,728 Messages
    18 Likes Received
    I can understand why some see it as racist.

    "Whiteskins"
    "Blackskins"

    With a picture of someone of the race as a logo?
  5. Danny White

    Danny White Winter is Coming

    12,345 Messages
    1 Likes Received
    Bunch of damn dirty racists.

Share This Page