Redskins suing Native Americans offended by name

This just seems bizarre to me.

Tl;dr essentially this group of 5 Natives complained to the Trafemark office. Trademark office pulls some trademarkss as they were deemed offensive. Redskins suing trademark office and the people who complained instead of going to appellate court so they can bring new evidence.

It seems a little whacky that it's OK to sue people who complain when the decision isn't left up to them, but the trademarkoffice.

This also seems like a completely foolish thing to do when trying to bolster your image. Sue the people you're offending. Granted there's a LOT of money on the line, but it seems like going after that cash is going to be move public opinion and they risk losing much more in the long run.

I personally don't really care either way about the name. Just a little perplexed how one can sue someone else for complaining. I mean if you're offended you're offended. If the trademark office agrees why and how do you sue?

A federal judge seems to think Native Americans offended by the Washington Redskins team name are properly being sued by the NFL franchise.

Judge Gerald Bruce Lee suggested during a hearing Friday that it would be unprecedented to dismiss the team's lawsuit against five Native Americans who complained about the name to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

A trademark office board decided in June to cancel some of the Redskins' trademarks, citing federal regulations against protecting words and images that are disparaging or offensive.

The team could have challenged the ruling in appellate court in Washington, but sought help instead in a venue that gives it more options, by going to a trial court to sue the Native Americans who complained in the first place.

Link

a reply to: Domo1

This is just crazy, seriously how could a judge hear this?

I get suing the trademark office, but the people....
Very 'honorable' of you snyder.

The Native Americans filed the petitions maybe thinking they were immune to prosecution... They're trying to lay blame on the trademark office when they're the ones who brought it to light in the first place.... I don't agree they should be sued but not taking responsibility for your actions could get you into some hot water...

a reply to: Domo1

It's not surprising. Money is more important in America than justice fairness or common decency. Large companies will often bring start ups to court just to drive then out if business with legal fees. We live in the most corrupt, hypocritical nation in history.

Corporations are people now. They are actually more important "people" than real human beings now. Most Americans don't even see a problem with this state of affairs

a reply to: jheated5

You shouldn't be sued for complaining. It's not a frivolous complaint.

How should they "take responsibility" for their actions? Genuinely curious, not trying to be combative.

I don't see it falls on the people who complained when they didn't make the decision. That's like someone suing you for suing because the judge ruled in your favor.

a reply to: Domo1

I don't get the whole thing. If a team called themselves the "whiteskins" with a stupid mascot of a Pilgrim I wouldn't care.

Native Americans have ultra protected rights. On the part of the Redskins suing the Native Americans, I say this is a

WAY BAD MOVE

The Redskins will lose sympathy as Native Americans gain it, the Redskins will lose this war, maybe not this fight but they will ultimately lose. It's just a matter of time.

a reply to: Domo1

Complaining is one thing, I think they signed some sort of documents (petitions) that could get them in legal hot water.. If it were just about complaints they'd be sticking it to a lot more people than 5... I think they were more invested into this than just a complaint.... Still suing them isn't going to solve anything and I think it's stupid..

a reply to: StoutBroux

I agree. I see the treaty in the works. One we can all agree on, pass into law and then renege on.

Just like all the rest.

a reply to: jheated5

It still seems nutty to me. I can usually figure out where the law is coming from, but this has me flummoxed.

Thanks for the reply! I'm sure you're on to something. There has to be a reason why it was this 5. I'm sure many more complained.

a reply to: Domo1

This tactics are not new, what they are doing is a countersue, perfectly legal when it comes to property rights and patents and that is the whole issue here.

The whole thing will be dismissed when it comes to offensive material and will be settle on who own the property rights to use the native head logo and the term redskin.

But I am sure that lawyers are the ones making the money here.

I don't really care. Screw those guys that complained. If you are so offended by something that you have to take action against it to shut it up, you're the one with the problem.

a reply to: tinker9917

You'd think it's less funny if you were one of the last survivors of your race.

a reply to: smithjustinb

One could easily take what you just said and apply it to you.

Awesome! The bully pulpit should not be immune!

originally posted by: tavi45
a reply to: smithjustinb

One could easily take what you just said and apply it to you.

I'm not offended by anything.

I never said it was funny!

I very much respect Indians and their heritage. I have Cherokee Indian blood in my family. But
I'm not gonna nitpick about the name Redskins. Just rediculous.

double post

Double post

[inappropriate image removed]

Public Relations disaster incoming.

I couldn't care less about the situation, but the Redskins will find that they will lose public sympathy as a result of this move. A major label taking legal action against individuals is not a nice image to portray, and i think this will be exacerbated due to the very nature of this incident - that is, a label taking action against indigenous people for their complaints and the subsequent cancelling of trademarks associated with the Redskins.

The Redskins should have appealed instead of suing, as such actions can destroy the reputation of a label or organisation.