US Patent Office cancels Commanders Trademarks

[Califan007]

No, it's not misinformation.

I've been thru the trademark process plenty of times. And one of my best friends is a trademark attorney and has worked for large trademark heavy corporations in the WWE. And my current job we deal with trademarks from companies like Chevrolet, Porsche and Ford all of the time given our agreement with those companies and the royalties they get to collect from them.

The Commanders can still sue people using the trademark, but it's extremely difficult to win those cases.

That's rather different from "So anybody can use the Washington Commanders name and logo to sell whatever they please and Daniel Snyder can do nothing about it."

I believe Snyder will fight it initially, then give up on the idea and blame it on the government.

Fight what...the name change, the trademark ruling, or suing people who attempt to use the Skins name and logo to sell "whatever they please"?

It doesn't really hurt Snyder per say. Theoretically it could see his merch sales drop, but it really comes down to not making as much money as he can. I'm sure he has other shareholders involved with the Commanders and they won't be happy with the fact they can't make more money and all they have to do is change the name and they will probably see a boost in mech sales initially, they can make more of the money available, and they don't have to worry about fighting for the name anymore.

This quote from another Forbes.com article states my views well:

The public can debate the name and context all day, but a change will remain unlikely. Passikoff’s research captures the reason: strong fan loyalty that’s based above all else on history and tradition. The Commanders, the NFL’s third-most valuable franchise at $1.6 billion, rank 13th of the league’s 32 clubs in Brand Keys’ sports loyalty index.

That’s only slightly above average, but as Passikoff notes, the club ranks No. 7 in the “history and tradition” component of the index, keeping company with franchises like Green Bay, Chicago and Dallas. That history component is the foundation – it varies little from year to year, bringing sustained value, while the rest of the index fluctuates with the recent fortunes of the team. Washington had been mired in mediocrity for years until Robert Griffin III created a new buzz and a playoff ride this past season.

Meanwhile, Forbes assigns $131 million of the Commanders’ $1.6 billion valuation to its brand strength, behind only the Cowboys and Patriots. How much of that brand strength is specifically tied up in the name? It’s impossible to say, exactly. But when you’re minting money even in down years, as the Commanders do, you don’t have much interest in trying to find out. A fresh round of merchandise sales tied to a new identity isn’t worth the risk. As Passikoff puts it: “You’ve got an awful lot of people who don’t want them called the Washington Congressionals.”

Why the Washington Commanders Will Never Change Their Name

 

[Califan007]

Here is the way I look at it, your mileage may vary.

If you were standing in a room having a conversation with an African American you had just met would you use the N word? If the person were Chinese would you use the word Chink? If he or she were Italian would you talk about Wops? So now for a minute picture the same scenario with an American Indian in the room. Would you look that person in the eye and call them a Commander? I think that the vast majority of people would not, and that's because they understand that the word has derogatory connotations.

I wouldn't call them an Indian, either. Or a Brave or a Warrior, either.

 

[Hostile]

What impact? Many natvie americans are not offended by the name because 1 group makes noise does not mean they speak for everyone. Nor does it mean Washington has to change their name to accomidate

Hail to the Commanders!


Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old D.C.!

Run or pass and score -- we want a lot more!

Beat 'em, Swamp 'em,

Touchdown! -- Let the points soar!

Fight on, fight on 'Til you have won

Sons of Wash-ing-ton. Rah!, Rah!, Rah!

Hail to the Commanders!

Hail Victory!

Braves on the Warpath!

Fight for old D.C.!

sorry I don't think anyone wrote this song to offend but instead to praise.

Those aren't the original words. They were changed because...get this...the original words were a bit racist.

 

[Yakuza Rich]

This quote from another Forbes.com article states my views well:



Why the Washington Commanders Will Never Change Their Name

Do you believe for a second that if they changed their nickname that they would lose their fanbase?

Personally, I think it's a preposterous notion. To the point if the Commanders went out and won the Super Bowl the first year under a new name...the fans would start denouncing the Commanders name as a 'curse' and the new name as why good things happened to them.

Van Riper's notion becomes even more preposterous when he cites Passikoff. They are a well established franchise and the idea that they will be leaving in droves because the last name changed is completely ludicrous.

But, if Snyder really believes that nonsense, then that explains why he continues to fight for the name.





YR

 

[bb721]

I wouldn't call them an Indian, either. Or a Brave or a Warrior, either.

That has no relevance to whether or not the term Commander is derogatory.

 

[Doomsday101]

Those aren't the original words. They were changed because...get this...the original words were a bit racist.

sorry people want to play these race games and I really get tired of it. It is like the N word the only people using it tend to be black they use it in their comedy routines, songs and those who talk with each other. It really has become a joke these days. Yet everyone else is suppose to tip toe around it because it is soooooo bad well if it is that damn offensive then they need to stop doing it themselfs.

 

[Califan007]

Do you believe for a second that if they changed their nickname that they would lose their fanbase?

That article wasn't about "losing their fanbase"...it was about losing the stability of their brand strength.

And you can think it's preposterous all you want...multi-billion dollar corporations invest a crapload of time, money and resources to find out the type of info contained in that article. They base corporate decisions on that info because more times than not it turns out to be valid and valuable.

At the very least it's much, MUCH more valuable than the opinions that two schmucks like us toss around on a message board lol...

 

[Califan007]

That has no relevance to whether or not the term Commander is derogatory.

Then whether or not I would be in a room with a Native American and call them a 'Commander' has no relevance to whether it's derogatory, either. That was my point.

 

[bb721]

Then whether or not I would be in a room with a Native American and call them a 'Commander' has no relevance to whether it's derogatory, either. That was my point.

Well then explain why you would feel the need to refrain from using any of those terms if they're not derogatory?

 

[Doomsday101]

Well then explain why you would feel the need to refrain from using any of those terms if they're not derogatory?

Because we live in a time of speech police, is it derogatory when a high school with 92% Native American use the name Commanders for their football team?

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

No, it really can't. The origins of the terms don't matter in the slightest. It's been true for many decades, and it's true today, that "Commanders" has been used as a term of disparagement in a way and to a degree that "Indians" has not.

Can you prove this? I have yet to see anyone who can.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

Here is the way I look at it, your mileage may vary.

If you were standing in a room having a conversation with an African American you had just met would you use the N word? If the person were Chinese would you use the word Chink? If he or she were Italian would you talk about Wops? So now for a minute picture the same scenario with an American Indian in the room. Would you look that person in the eye and call them a Commander? I think that the vast majority of people would not, and that's because they understand that the word has derogatory connotations.

No, the vast majority would not because it's simply rude in our culture to call someone something OTHER THAN their actual name. Which is why no matter the race, creed, age or sex, whenever you meet someone you introduce yourself with your name and they tell you theirs. If someone introduced me to people as their "mixed race" friend, I'd find them kinda rude considering I have a name that they obviously didn't feel like using. Your hypothetical situation, which many people have used as if it actually means anything, is flawed from the very start.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Well, yeah. That's why the term Native American has been displacing it for years.

These things move along a contiuum; they're not off/on. "African American" has gained currency over "black" but "black" is still widely used without significant repercussions. Very similar, I think, to where "Indian" vs. "Native American" sits today. Whereas "Oriental" is further along the continuum, more generally seen as distasteful but not completely taboo, like a bunch of words that wouldn't make it through the filter here.

So sure, "Indian" can be seen as offensive. But "Commander" is way more offensive, and I don't think there's a serious argument against that.

No, it's really not because it's not being directed at anybody who is Native American. It's ridiculous to even consider that as such. Chicago has a Hockey Team called the Black Hawks. Should African Americans be upset because they are called Black Hawks? No, because there is no intent. There is no Malice there, no prejudicial intent.

 

[bb721]

. Your hypothetical situation, which many people have used as if it actually means anything, is flawed from the very start.

Only to those that have a hard time seeing the bigger picture.

 

[NIBGoldenchild]

Only to those that have a hard time seeing the bigger picture.

Is that you're best response? No response at all. No surprise.

 

[Sonny#9]

I am going to break your post down, as there is a lot of half-truths and misinformation in it...

From the sounds of it, they only got the last appeal on a technicality and this time it won't apply.

That was part of it. The appeals court also ruled that there wasn't sufficient evidence to merit the removal, and the lower court erred in doing so. That bit was in the decision released today--which I have read. From what I read, there was really very little new evidence introduced, other than a linguistic argument, which has gaping holes in it. I.e. The plaintiff's linguist researched ~150,000 uses of the word "Commander" since the late 1800s-early 1900s. Only 71 were not referencing the team, potatoes, or peaches (I have never heard of redskinned peaches before reading the decision), and many of those were preceded by qualifiers such as "greasy" or "dirty." Yet the court ruled that the team's position that the term Commander had lost its ethnic label was not convincing.

Likewise, the court made an assumption that since the NCAI objected, and they represent 30% of NAs, then 30% are offended. That is a huge assumption to base a judgement on.

This was a split decision, just like 1999, with pretty much the same evidence. This will get overturned.

I think the name is embarrassing for the NFL and as a fan of a team that belongs in the NFL, I'm embarrassed that the NFL would continue to go out of their way to try and protect the name.

I don't believe that current day fans and the current day Washington team are actually racist against Native Americans. But, it is a name that once represented racism towards Native Americans and the lengths that racism led to, which included rape, torture and murder of Native Americans.

There is no evidence the term "Commander" relates to any of this.

Several NAs refer to "Commander" as their name, as they didn't like the names the Europeans game them: i.e. Apache is a Parisian gangster or common street thug. Many NAs are proud of the name--its a name they gave to themselves. Several schools on Native reservations are called the Commanders--the principal at one in Washington was quoted saying "We are proud of our name, and I dare someone to come up here and take it."

So, I think it is disrespectful to label the Washington Commanders and their fans as racists against Native Americans. But, I do think they are extremely inconsiderate towards the Native Americans and their culture. They just have some irrational devotion to keeping that name even if it makes them look like fools.

YR

It's not that cut and dry. Yes there are NAs who are offended, clearly. However, this is the rhetoric that keeps getting repeated by the mainstream media, b/c who doesn't love a good emotional, populist cause? It gets good ratings.

It only tells half the story. If paying attention to the whole story, and not the rants of Keith Olbermann, Mike Florio, or the like makes me a fool...well, how foolish are those who only pay attention to half the facts?

 

[DallasEast]

Sing it, Sam...

Then I go to my brother,
And I say, "Brother, help me please."
But he winds UP knockin' me,
Back down on my knees...

There been times when I THOUGHT I couldn't last for long...
But now I think I'm able to carry on.

It's been a long, a LONG TIME coming but I know,
A change gonna come, oh yes it will.

​

 

[Califan007]

Well then explain why you would feel the need to refrain from using any of those terms if they're not derogatory?

Because to talk to an individual person and referring to them only by their race/skin color/ethnicity/nationality is rude. If I were in a room with a female I would not say to her "Hello, woman". Yet if I were talking about a group of females I would have no hesitation whatsoever saying they were "a group of women". If someone came up to me and said "Hello, Black man", I'd be offended. I'm not offended because he called me "black"...I'm offended because he apparently couldn't look at me as an individual. But I don't get offended when someone, say, writes an article about Black men.

It's the act that is rude, not the word used.

 

[65fastback2plus2]

the ruling is absolutely absurd, stupid and idiotic, and sad that americans support such breaking of simple freedoms.

 

[ABQCOWBOY]

Because to talk to an individual person and referring to them only by their race/skin color/ethnicity/nationality is rude. If I were in a room with a female I would not say to her "Hello, woman". Yet if I were talking about a group of females I would have no hesitation whatsoever saying they were "a group of women". If someone came up to me and said "Hello, Black man", I'd be offended. I'm not offended because he called me "black"...I'm offended because he apparently couldn't look at me as an individual. But I don't get offended when someone, say, writes an article about Black men.

It's the act that is rude, not the word used.

This is 100% true. It is an insult to refer to a person in terms of race, rather then name. If a White Man walked into the room and you called him "White Guy" rather then his given name, that would be rude and Disrespectful. Same for any other race. That would be much more offensive.

That's why that whole, "If you were in a room with a Native American, would you call him Commander to his face?" argument is so idiotic. Of course not, nor would I do that to any other person of any color because he or she has a name and if you don't know it, you can refer to them in a respectful way such as Sir or Miss or Ma'am or any number of more respectful terms. Ludicrous. I have to wonder how these things get started.