From the new Minority Report show, for everyone who will inevitably ask.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Washington Redskins appealing trademark case with Take Yo Panties Off porn defense
- Thread starter XiaNaphryz
- Start date
- Status
JustAnotherMike
Member
Big Titty Blend Coffee (pg. 4 of the brief)
The researchers for this firm must be tired.
uncelestial
Member
Well, at least they're admitting (by making this argument at all) they're as provocative as all those things, which is a first step.
Sheesh.
Sheesh.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
It's worrying that people think a billion dollar football team trying to using brands and musicians that are almost non-existent in the public eye as deflectors is a good defense.
Sucks that after centuries of near-extermination and marginalization that Native Americans only get to be thought of as costumes or mascots by a lot of people
Sucks that after centuries of near-extermination and marginalization that Native Americans only get to be thought of as costumes or mascots by a lot of people
Is the size of the company seeking to register the mark a factor considered when determining whether or not it is disparaging? I haven't fully read the lower court's opinion to see what all was considered in reaching its decision.
unknownstranger
Member
This is some 10 year old logic I tried on my parents a lot but it rarely worked.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
You'll have to point it out. Seems they've admitted nothing..I'm told..
Certainly.
It makes everyone working at that organization look like a gigantic asshole and pretty much admits fault, but yes...the argument is valid.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Taking this tactic shows an elementary failure to understand the problem in the first place. Honestly I'm not interested in the intricacies of the gymnastics routine at this point.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Well YOU aren't..
Count Dookkake
Member
It really doesn't even do that. They're just pointing out that offense is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't seem that they are admitting the name is offensive. There is no fault.
Maybe he's a patriot and doesn't like the tactics used?!
/s
As said above, their argument is a fair argument. It HAS to be personal since at this point it's like "What are you fighting for?!" Maybe the fact they had judges step in really pissed him off.
stump sock
Member
no, the patriots are a different team
The legal significance or non-significance of a factor (the size and worth of the mark's registrant) is directly related to whether or not the comparison to other trademarks is a "good defense." This seems self-evident, but your undeserved dismissive attitude means you are either being obtuse, or don't understand the implications of your own statements.
I suppose even arguing whether it does or not is in the eye of the beholder.
Still though, not a good look.
They don't technically admit anything.
Much in the way that OJ didn't admit anything.
They're just asking questions, you know?
The judge should go with the "And if 'Take yo panties off' jumps off a cliff you do it too?!" response.
Count Dookkake
Member
It does not admit fault that I can see.
The asshole bit is irrelevant as using the name already makes that case.
For the cheap seats: you can not like the name and still be against the legal wrangling against this and other "offensive" names.
Netherscourge
Banned
$$$$
How much money do you think they would have to spend to replace all the Redskins commercial media, logos, signs, billboards, licensing alterations, deals...
The football field art, the stadium seat colors and patterns...
Not to mention all the patent trolls and squatters they'd have to deal with when trying to find a NEW name for the team. Registering new trademarks and copyrights and domains...
It has nothing to do with heritage. It's all about money.
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Most people realize this is just a dodge. I'm sure it may be fascinating for those who are interested in the fine print but that's not me, and that's why I'm dismissive.
stump sock
Member
heritage is just another word for "unsold merch"
If by "fine print" you mean "the language in the statute that governs this case" then that's up to you. You can be unconcerned by the terms of the legal authority and only look at the arguments from a lay perspective, but refusing to consider the framework of the law renders your opinion on whether the team's legal position is sound as irrelevant.
If only there wasn't precedent for other teams to change their names for this exact same reason. Like the Syracuse Orangemen or the St. John's Redmen (and those were more than just one sport).
Massive Duck. C.M.
Banned
Are you a lawyer for Snyder or something? You seem very invested in telling me how irrelevant I am
CadetMahoney
Member
MOM! go away, I'm busy researching.
Are you going to be ok?
prag16
Banned
Absolutely. Granted, it does make them look like assholes. But it's a fair argument.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
TS-08..you're fine with the name, correct? Asking since you're a man that wants answers..
industrian
will gently cradle you as time slowly ticks away.
Pointing out how shitty other companies are does not make your company less shitty.
Someone got paid to research these brands. It must have been a fun afternoon.
Someone got paid to research these brands. It must have been a fun afternoon.
Gordon Shumway
Banned
Gentleman Jack
Member
is this truly what you want
They seem to be fine with using these companies' names as a defense for their own name and if they made people leave for using those names then it would imply the names are actually not okay with being a thing.
My suggestion wasn't meant to lead them into breaking the law of anything, just to point out their silliness. [especially when they are defending themselves with dumb names]
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
ohsnap.gif
The point of their argument, though, is that the Judge overstepped the bounds of what is normally done and thus his decision should be reversed. It has nothing really to do with offensiveness in and of itself, it's that they were singled out and mistreated. I.e., if they're to be judged by a certain measuring stick, then every company should be.
That's why your suggestion isn't equivalent and missing the point.
Gentleman Jack
Member
The owners won't do shit, because lord knows they wouldn't want to be in Snyder's position when public opinion turns against them in any particular instance. They're the quintessential Old Boys Club.
Yeah, I get that. It still won't make them look less crazy if they were to get upset over some of those names when many people would argue their name is in the same category.
I severely doubt the team's name would have lasted as long if they were called one of the names on their list. The fact that the Redskins say the judge overstepped the bounds is the team's problem. A lot of other people would consider their name to be disparaging and are on the side that the judge did not overstep and the same rules should also go towards the companies they named.
It finally happened, a post finally got me to laugh out loud during class, I have no regrets.
It seems to me that everytime that someone is saying something racist publicily, he's not fined, he just get dogpiled by the internet justice and then they just go on. On most EU law systems, i could see a discriminatory speech offense case, but in the US?
The point is that under assumption of free speech, this shit is not a law issue, it's a moral one (unless there are more limitation to free speech in america than i assume). As i see it, this is on the NFL and the fans; if they're fine with it then i don't think there is a ground for american law to force them to change the name, even if they were called magical RGB 0 0 0 people . If they started to lose even 1% of their fan sales over this controversy, you may be sure they'd change their name yesterday.
The point is that under assumption of free speech, this shit is not a law issue, it's a moral one (unless there are more limitation to free speech in america than i assume). As i see it, this is on the NFL and the fans; if they're fine with it then i don't think there is a ground for american law to force them to change the name, even if they were called magical RGB 0 0 0 people . If they started to lose even 1% of their fan sales over this controversy, you may be sure they'd change their name yesterday.
Gentleman Jack
Member
Football fans have overlooked far worse than racism in their tireless support of their favorite team. We'll be waiting a long ass time if it's on them to initiate sea change in racist caricature in team names and logos.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked