Redskins just lost their trademark

Patent office stripped their copyright.



Trademark board rules against Redskins name

Quote:

---

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The U.S. Patent Office ruled Wednesday that the Washington Redskins nickname is "disparaging of Native Americans" and that the team's federal trademarks for the name must be canceled.

The 2-1 ruling comes after a campaign to change the name gained momentum over the past year. The team doesn't immediately lose trademark protection and is allowed to retain it during an appeal, which is likely.

Redskins owner Dan Snyder has refused to change the team's name, citing tradition, but there has been growing pressure including statements in recent months from President Barack Obama, lawmakers of both parties and civil rights groups.

The decision means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose a significant portion of its ability to protect the financial interests connected to its use. If others printed the name on sweatshirts, apparel, or other team material, it becomes more difficult to go after groups who use it without permission.

The case involves six registered trademarks that involve the use of the word Redskins, but it does not apply to the team's logo.

The decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board is similar to one it issued in 1999. That ruling was overturned in 2003 in large part on a technicality after the courts decided that the plaintiffs should have filed their complaint soon after the Redskins registered their nickname in 1967.

...

(rest of article at the link here http://news.yahoo.com/trademark-boar...142056503.html)

---

At least they're not the Eagles tbh

I visited a reservation in Utah 2 years ago and their middle school mascot was the Redskins. I have a picture somewhere I'll try to dig up.

I have no faith in Washington to come up with a decent name after the Wizards and Nationals. It'll probably be some fag crap involving flags or something similarly retarded.

Keep the name. Change the picture to a redskin potato.

This move by the Patent office has the admin's fingerprints all over it.

Lol even native Americans don't find the name offensive, this is the work of white liberals in their nonstop conquest to prove that they're the most tolerant and progressive (guilt much?)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

I didn't read the linked article because I am to lazy to do shit like that. I would prefer not knowing that the ruling was the result of actions taken by a group of native americans who had brought an administrative suit, and then saying something stupid about how it was white liberals that did it.

---

That's ok. We expect that much out of you.

Carry on.

I just wanted to post one of my favorite Onion articles here...

http://www.theonion.com/articles/was...e-dc-re,34161/

http://o.onionstatic.com/images/23/2...l/700.jpg?9603

New logo will have a rainbow

The New York Yankees should be forced to have their name changed. Historically Yankee has been a derogatory term aimed at white northerners.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by m>s

Lol even native Americans don't find the name offensive, this is the work of white liberals in their nonstop conquest to prove that they're the most tolerant and progressive (guilt much?)

---

Actually you're wrong...they loathe the name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I have no faith in Washington to come up with a decent name after the Wizards and Nationals. It'll probably be some fag crap involving flags or something similarly retarded.

---

It's so close to the season they should just buy all plain unis and call themselves the Washington Whiteys.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_logo.svg.png

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_logo.svg.png

---

Redskins were an easier target tbh.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-JnnSNF3p0G...irish-logo.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Medvedenko

Actually you're wrong...they loathe the name.

---

Proof please?

None of the res guys I grew up with give two shits. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two shits either.

Next up:
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Cleveland Browns
Atlanta Braves

I don't think a poll has been taken in the past ten years, but back then most didn't care.

I do love that it's riled up the right wingers. They're so cute when they're outraged.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Proof please?

None of the res guys I grew up with give two shits. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two shits either.

Next up:
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Cleveland Browns
Atlanta Braves

---

Google is your friend:

http://youtu.be/A_aPlSHEQ18

In all the righteous indignation about some sort of political correctness overload, opponents of the name change act as if their passionate defense of a sports mascot is somehow less pathetic than the opposition directed towards the name.

Who gives a shit? It bothers enough native Americans, so change the name. It's not that important.

And that Cleveland Indians caricature is next, tbh. Get used to it.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...MissRebels.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ChumpDumper

I do love that it's riled up the right wingers. They're so cute when they're outraged.

---

I actually could care less about this issue. It suddenly took on great importance in the past few years.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I actually could care less about this issue.

---

Clearly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Clearly.

---

lol

After all the sports teams the states will be next:

Alabama
Arkansas
North Dakota / South Dakota
Idaho
Illinois
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Massachusetts
Michigan
Minnesota
Mississippi
Missouri
Nebraska
Oklahoma
Tennessee
Wisconsin
Wyoming

Since Snyder is allowed to keep the logo he should just stick it to the NFL and call his team the Washington Savages.

change the name to the washington pale skings, washington hooknoses, washington crackers and be done with it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Proof please?

None of the res guys I grew up with give two shits. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two shits either.

Next up:
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Cleveland Browns
Atlanta Braves

---

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5RyRxbuouuY

Oregon State BEAVERS! :wow

Suck it autists.

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...d-change-name/

Pm me your wives numbers cucks

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/No...rgers-calkins/

Yup.

Ive also read many more articles from other Native Americans that said the same thing, they don't give a shit about the name and have more pressing needs than to worry about an NFL team. The white guilt is getting offensive.

According to wiki eleven high schools use savages as a mascot. Hard to believe today; probably won't last long though. The Cleveland Indians logo is definitely doomed. They might just get a new name while they're at it. Does anybody know if Red Raider refers to natives? I always thought it did because I couldn't think of anything else a Red Raider could be. Wiki says that Texas Tech got the name from red uniforms they had but there are high schools that use it.

One thing I'd like to know: I wonder if there are more Native Americans offended by Redskins or more blacks offended that Washington was a slave owner. In the future everyone should just play it safe and name their cities after people of color and their sports teams after white people.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_logo.svg.png

---

That's my High Schools mascot as well, and we were also the Indians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That's my High Schools mascot as well, and we were also the Indians.

---

How original.

If you fuck with the Redskins over this PC shit, then you have to go after the Blackhawks, Indians, Chiefs, and Braves too.

What about the fighting Irish? Not only is it the same thing but it's worse because it's also a stereotype of them rather than just an observation of skin color.

But I forgot liberals think there is no such thing as prejudice against white people. Can't wait for the day of the rope when the cancer of all western civilization is removed.

Talk to any white nationalist or national socialist and this is why white leftists are hated way more than any "minority" were supposedly "racist" against. All you self hating traitors can eat fucking shit cocksuckers.

lol OUTRAGE!

Red and black for national socialism

Chief Wahoo is being phased out in Cleveland already you ignorant fucks.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10...ief-wahoo-logo

And why am I not surprised that TSA ignores the litany of tribes and individuals speaking against the name and hand waves after anecdotes. After all the complaint to the patent office was submitted by a group of indians.

A simple google search will reveal reams of native americans who reject the name and likeness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Chief Wahoo is being phased out in Cleveland already you ignorant fucks.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10...ief-wahoo-logo

And why am I not surprised that TSA ignores the litany of tribes and individuals speaking against the name and hand waves after anecdotes. After all the complaint to the patent office was submitted by a group of indians.

A simple google search will reveal reams of native americans who reject the name and likeness.

---

I ignored nothing. I simply pointed out there were many Native Americans who do not take offense.

And why am I not surprised Lumpy ignores the Native Americans who are supportive of the name?

A simple google search will reveal this.

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-eve...d-18d7fb768bb7

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-ca...rican-support/

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/No...rgers-calkins/

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...ntroversy-9395

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360

---

That's a great column. Did you read the whole thing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

That's a great column. Did you read the whole thing?

---

Of course, I posted it and linked it as the first article for a reason. The writer is offended by the word Redskin, but he also points out "The vast majority of Native people do not sit around wishing the Redskins would change their name" and "The anti-Redskins movement is driven by a small percentage of Native people". This is what I've been saying the whole time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Chief Wahoo is being phased out in Cleveland already you ignorant fucks.

http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/10...ief-wahoo-logo

And why am I not surprised that TSA ignores the litany of tribes and individuals speaking against the name and hand waves after anecdotes. After all the complaint to the patent office was submitted by a group of indians.

A simple google search will reveal reams of native americans who reject the name and likeness.

---

the problem is, who gives a shit?

cheerlead to change the fighting irish then you little bitchmade faggot.

lets go ahead and give the Indians their land back too

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Of course, I posted it and linked it as the first article for a reason. The writer is offended by the word Redskin, but he also points out "The vast majority of Native people do not sit around wishing the Redskins would change their name" and "The anti-Redskins movement is driven by a small percentage of Native people". This is what I've been saying the whole time.

---

Sure, most Native Americans don't sit around obsessing about the Redskins name, and most of them don't really have the time or resources to fight it. Does that mean we should fight to keep it around when there is a good number of others who ARE bothered by it?

A lot of black folks didn't think segregation was a big deal and weren't really all that interested in fighting it. I would guess most black people didn't really do anything to fight it. Didn't mean it was ok.

It's not about some kind of popular vote. Sometimes society decides that certain things are beneath them and they want to be better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

It's not about some kind of popular vote. Sometimes society decides that certain things are beneath them and they want to be better.

---

And what if the majority of Native Americans are not opposed to a team named the Redskins? Society gets to speak for the Native Americans?

Getting rid of segregation was a huge mistake

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

And what if the majority of Native Americans are not opposed to a team named the Redskins? Society gets to speak for the Native Americans?

---

You're confusing apathy with support.

Do you think a majority of Native Americans believe the name should be kept?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

You're confusing apathy with support.

Do you think a majority of Native Americans believe the name should be kept?

---

I honestly don't know, the question I posed was hypothetical. Last poll (some flaws) taken didn't show much support at all for a name change.

I support the rights of the native Americans to fight the name, and if they truly find it offensive, I hope that they get it changed. I don't, however, support the TM being taken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

I actually could care less about this issue. It suddenly took on great importance in the past few years.

---

that's what has bothered me, how it's become this meme across DC and the media. the vast majority of people, including most native americans apparently, don't give a shit or find it offensive. I wonder if this is something the administration has cooked up to deflect from various other fuckups and scandals.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

I ignored nothing. I simply pointed out there were many Native Americans who do not take offense.

And why am I not surprised Lumpy ignores the Native Americans who are supportive of the name?

A simple google search will reveal this.

http://deadspin.com/redskins-a-nativ...ous-1445909360

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2013/...ins-is-a-slur/

http://www.redskins.com/news-and-eve...d-18d7fb768bb7

http://go.bloomberg.com/political-ca...rican-support/

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2013/No...rgers-calkins/

http://nationalinterest.org/commenta...ntroversy-9395

---

Uncle Tom thought slavery was cool too. That is besides the point. They are called minority rights for a reason.

And yes you ignored them as you do not even consider their existence in your argument. Your argument basically is that because some American Indians are alright with the name then it makes it okay. Now you think human rights are up for a vote when called on it.

i will also point out that you should read the entirety of the articles you cite instead of regurgitating your google search. For example, the cbs article talks of your self selected survey but it goes on to talk about how black people call each other nigga and it being cool yet the name still being offensive as well the idiocy of considering the native american community as monolithic when in fact it is radically diverse tribes that make up its constituents. spurminator had another one pointed out above.

this is the behavior of a sophist. unfortunately for you, your sophistry comes with what we can expect from you: lazy and dumb.

Have a fucked day, shitbag.

The timing of this mess is interesting. (Donald Sterling?)

Imo the name carries far more weight because of the history of Native Americans. The Fighting Irish, the Buffalo Bills... their history is not one of a real tragedy in this country. How it is decided what type of history makes a mascot offensive is difficult, but clear for me in this case.

Blue and Red DEVILS

Christians unite... rise up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Proof please?

None of the res guys I grew up with give two shits. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two shits either.

Next up:
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Cleveland Browns
Atlanta Braves

---

The Browns were named after a person.

you're the true racist here buddy, i'm just standing up for my people apparently you have a problem with that

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonnerific the fluffer

Actually, I don't care that you are a fucking moron racist, I do care that you waste valuable oxygen that those of us that are capable of thinking could put to better use.

And oh, you are a brave tough guy anonymously on the internet. Congrats, for being as they say in prison a punk. I am guessing that you had the same experience as Edward Norton did in American History X, problem was you enjoyed it, and now you are ashamed for finally having to acknowledge that you love the big black cock.

---

Seems to me it's you who likes to suck dick.

definition: bonnerific:

An adjective that describes an action that a woman does to a man that will most likely give him a long lasting erection

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Sure, most Native Americans don't sit around obsessing about the Redskins name, and most of them don't really have the time or resources to fight it. Does that mean we should fight to keep it around when there is a good number of others who ARE bothered by it?

A lot of black folks didn't think segregation was a big deal and weren't really all that interested in fighting it. I would guess most black people didn't really do anything to fight it. Didn't mean it was ok.

It's not about some kind of popular vote. Sometimes society decides that certain things are beneath them and they want to be better.

---

Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the constitution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the constitution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.

---

Sure, I don't think the two examples are anywhere close to each other in importance, and I certainly don't think Washington should be banned from using the name. But I also don't think the patent office should make decisions like this based on an arbitrary majority opinion.

Perhaps a better comparison... In 1940 a football team could have probably gotten by calling themselves the Minstrels and having a blackface mascot without a lot of public outcry (or a majority opinion against it) but ideally that wouldn't matter.

Like I said, sometimes society realizes they're better than this. The "line" evolves but in situations as trivial as a sports team's mascot, that's not really a bad thing. It's 2014 and we are above calling a football team The Redskins when the only arguments in favor of it are tradition and nostalgia. The patent office shouldn't have even had to say anything about it.

There's no magic number and there doesn't need to be, because these will always be argued on a case by case basis. It's not a slippery slope that's somehow going to lead to the unstoppable sanitization of our culture from everything remotely offensive to every small group of people. Regardless of what happens with Washington's football team's name, the next time a controversy like this arises, we're going to argue about it for weeks on end then as well. And the next, and the next.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

Two completely different things here, and the PR surrounding an NFL franchise actually IS some kind of popular vote. In fact, anything driven by "this offends me" is just that, some kind of popular vote. I mean otherwise where does it end? Where is the magic number of people offended by something that makes it offensive? Segregation was a legal issue where the constitution was violated. This is not. Comparing them doesn't make much sense, IMO.

---

Segregation invokes the equal protection clause but different interpretations carry here. There are all sorts of statutes prohibiting racially derogatory language. The patent office used one such statute to reject their trademark.

And the constitution was reinterpreted from separate but equal meeting 14th to it not being the case in brown vs topeka. You could make the argument that took place because popular opinion. A true cynic would say that there are no self evident inalienable rights and that any and all are granted by popular consent.

It ends where the courts ultimately deem it to end. That is how things work in this country. The slippery slope argument is a nice fear mongering tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spurminator

Sure, I don't think the two examples are anywhere close to each other in importance, and I certainly don't think Washington should be banned from using the name. But I also don't think the patent office should make decisions like this based on an arbitrary majority opinion.

Perhaps a better comparison... In 1940 a football team could have probably gotten by calling themselves the Minstrels and having a blackface mascot without a lot of public outcry (or a majority opinion against it) but ideally that wouldn't matter.

Like I said, sometimes society realizes they're better than this. The "line" evolves but in situations as trivial as a sports team's mascot, that's not really a bad thing. It's 2014 and we are above calling a football team The Redskins when the only arguments in favor of it are tradition and nostalgia. The patent office shouldn't have even had to say anything about it.

There's no magic number and there doesn't need to be, because these will always be argued on a case by case basis. It's not a slippery slope that's somehow going to lead to the unstoppable sanitization of our culture from everything remotely offensive to every small group of people. Regardless of what happens with Washington's football team's name, the next time a controversy like this arises, we're going to argue about it for weeks on end then as well. And the next, and the next.

---

More than the slippery slope, I'm arguing the ambiguity of "society deciding its better". I don't think somehow everything that offends someone is going to be an issue for the patent office because there has to be someone pushing it first. I'm arguing that this isn't that at all but rather small groups of people making an issue out of something that pretty much no one really cares about.

For instance, if in some magic way it was possible to say for certain the NFL would force the Redskins to change their name if 50% of fans would boycott the NFL for year do you think it would happen? Thats an easy no. In fact, the vast majority of those offended won't boycott the NFL for a minute. They'll express their offense when it requires nothing more than a post on an internet message board. And they'll justify it by pointing to it being a Daniel Snyder issues and compartmentalize it to the franchise when the reality is that the NFL and every other owner makes a profit on that name just like Snyder.

My viewpoint is definitely swayed by a couple of things. First, as most of you know, I'm a Redskins fan. Although I have no tie to the name and really wouldn't really care if they changed it, I am tired of this stupid debate. Second, I live in the midst of what is likely the highest concentration of reservations/pueblos in the Nation. Guess who wears a lot of that Redskin gear? I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

More than the slippery slope, I'm arguing the ambiguity of "society deciding its better". I don't think somehow everything that offends someone is going to be an issue for the patent office because there has to be someone pushing it first. I'm arguing that this isn't that at all but rather small groups of people making an issue out of something that pretty much no one really cares about.

For instance, if in some magic way it was possible to say for certain the NFL would force the Redskins to change their name if 50% of fans would boycott the NFL for year do you think it would happen? Thats an easy no. In fact, the vast majority of those offended won't boycott the NFL for a minute. They'll express their offense when it requires nothing more than a post on an internet message board. And they'll justify it by pointing to it being a Daniel Snyder issues and compartmentalize it to the franchise when the reality is that the NFL and every other owner makes a profit on that name just like Snyder.

My viewpoint is definitely swayed by a couple of things. First, as most of you know, I'm a Redskins fan. Although I have no tie to the name and really wouldn't really care if they changed it, I am tired of this stupid debate. Second, I live in the midst of what is likely the highest concentration of reservations/pueblos in the Nation. Guess who wears a lot of that Redskin gear? I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

Uncle Tom thought slavery was cool too. That is besides the point. They are called minority rights for a reason.

And yes you ignored them as you do not even consider their existence in your argument. Your argument basically is that because some American Indians are alright with the name then it makes it okay. Now you think human rights are up for a vote when called on it.

i will also point out that you should read the entirety of the articles you cite instead of regurgitating your google search. For example, the cbs article talks of your self selected survey but it goes on to talk about how black people call each other nigga and it being cool yet the name still being offensive as well the idiocy of considering the native american community as monolithic when in fact it is radically diverse tribes that make up its constituents. spurminator had another one pointed out above.

this is the behavior of a sophist. unfortunately for you, your sophistry comes with what we can expect from you: lazy and dumb.

Have a fucked day, shitbag.

---

And off we go!

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-...ief-wahoo-logo

A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.
Here's more from CBS Cleveland:

Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.
“We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,” Roche told WEWS-TV. “It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”

Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.

“If just a small amount of people are against it, than I think you're doing a disservice to people that like it,” Bob Rosen, president of the Wahoo Club, tells WEWS. He added that thousands of Indians fans embrace Chief Wahoo as a loyal and friendly symbol.
“I'm not insensitive to the issue, but our 1,650 members of the Wahoo Club, anytime we have a Wahoo Club item they but it up they love it,” Rosen said. “Can you imagine the baseball team in this city not being called the Cleveland Indians? I can't picture that.”

The Indians have been gradually phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo over the last few years, replacing it with the red block letter "C" logo.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stripped the NFL's Washington Redskins of its trademark last week and called the team name a "racial slur." The Redskins are appealing the landmark ruling. People Not Mascots is looking for similar action against the Indians

These groups should keep on going and sue the government for the Declaration of Independence's use of the word Savages when referencing Native Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

Proof please?

None of the res guys I grew up with give two shits. And browsing the comments from multiple articles it doesn't seem like Native Americans give two shits either.

Next up:
Kansas City Chiefs
Cleveland Indians
Cleveland Browns
Atlanta Braves

---

I think the Browns are named after the original coach, Paul Brown. I doubt Native Americans are upset about that one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by TheSanityAnnex

And off we go!

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-...ief-wahoo-logo

A Native American group is planning to file a $9 billion federal lawsuit against the Cleveland Indians and their "offensive" Chief Wahoo logo, according to CBS Cleveland. The suit is expected to be filed next month.
Here's more from CBS Cleveland:

Robert Roche, a Chiricahua Apache and director of the American Indian Education Center, is planning to file a federal lawsuit in late July against the Cleveland Indians organization. Roche, who is also the leader of the group People Not Mascots, says the lawsuit will challenge that the team's name and Chief Wahoo logo are racist.
“We're going to be asking for $9 billion and we're basing it on a hundred years of disparity, racism, exploitation and profiteering,” Roche told WEWS-TV. “It's been offensive since day one. We are not mascots. My children are not mascots. We are people.”

Local supporters of the Chief Wahoo logo say it is only a small minority of people who are offended by the logo.

“If just a small amount of people are against it, than I think you're doing a disservice to people that like it,” Bob Rosen, president of the Wahoo Club, tells WEWS. He added that thousands of Indians fans embrace Chief Wahoo as a loyal and friendly symbol.
“I'm not insensitive to the issue, but our 1,650 members of the Wahoo Club, anytime we have a Wahoo Club item they but it up they love it,” Rosen said. “Can you imagine the baseball team in this city not being called the Cleveland Indians? I can't picture that.”

The Indians have been gradually phasing out the Chief Wahoo logo over the last few years, replacing it with the red block letter "C" logo.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office stripped the NFL's Washington Redskins of its trademark last week and called the team name a "racial slur." The Redskins are appealing the landmark ruling. People Not Mascots is looking for similar action against the Indians

---

I doubt that lawsuit has a snowballs chance in hell but if they want to waste money on legal fees then by all means. Of course I'm not a lawyer so what the fuck do I know. I could be totally wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I find it particularly patronizing when a bunch of white people are trying to tell Natives what they should and shouldn't be offended by. Now, of course there Natives who are offended by it but this is definitely an issue that has been built on the back of White America and not Native America.

Anyway, maybe sometimes society does decide it is better. Maybe that'll come after the Navajo nation stops using the Redskin as a mascot or after people actually care more about it than they do right now.

---

i find it particularly patronizing that you think that i am white. Cool story too. Too bad tribal councils are the groups that are bringing suit.

Quote:

---

Now, the National Congress of American Indians has joined in the opposition, issuing a video that consists of leaders from seven different tribes: Cathy Abramson, Councilmember, Sault Tribe of Chippewa Indians; Al Goozmer, President, Tyonek Native Village of Alaska; Brian Cladoosby, Chairman, Swinomish Indian Tribal Community and President, NCAI; Edwina Butler Wolfe, Governor, Absentee Shawnee Tribe of Oklahoma; Leander McDonald, Tribal Chairman, Spirit Lake Tribe; Dennis Welsh, Chairman, Colorado River Indian Tribes; Candace Bossard, Councilmember, Ponca Tribe of Nebraska.

---

The trademark suit was brought by native americans as well.

I never called you white, but OK. Sure, some tribal groups are bringing suits but you're being completely dishonest if you say this is an issue driven by Native Americans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MannyIsGod

I never called you white, but OK. Sure, some tribal groups are bringing suits but you're being completely dishonest if you say this is an issue driven by Native Americans.

---

So white people are forcing/coercing/magicing the National Congress of American Indians amongst other Indian leadership to pursue these various suits.

That's nice.

When I see actions taken it is by Indians. Who are these 'white' people?

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bqa1K1NCQAAqWVS.png

'Daily Show' Didn't Air Even More Intense Redskins Tailgate Footage

Migizi Pensoneau, one of three members of a Native American comedy group called the 1491s who appeared in the segment, wrote about his experience during the taping for a piece published Friday in the Missoula Independent. Pensoneau revealed that the day after the group of Native Americans confronted the panel of Redskins loyalists, the 'Daily Show' taped he and his fellow comedians wandering around a tailgate at Fed Ex Field on game day -- and by his account, they weren't well received by those fans either.

Pensoneau wrote that he "actually was afraid for my life" during the hour-long taping. He recounted being mocked and threatened, including by a blonde woman who told him

"I'll fucking cut you" because he was wearing a T-shirt that read "Caucasians."

Here's what Pensoneau says went down:

I’m a big dude—6’1”, and a lotta meat on the bones. But a blonde little wisp of a girl completely freaked me out as I waited in line for the bathroom. “Is that shirt supposed to be funny?” she asked motioning to my satirical “Caucasians” T-shirt. And then she said, “I’ll fucking cut you.” Actually, she didn’t scare me so much as the wannabe linebackers standing behind her who looked like they wanted to make good on her threat.

He went on to describe a man blowing cigar smoke in his face and other fans yelling at him to "go the fuck home" and "Thanks for letting us use your name!"

One of the Redskins fans who participated in the 'Daily Show' panel, Kelli O'Dell, had told the Washington Post earlier this week that she called the police after the taping because she felt similarly threatened by the Native American activists.

"The Native Americans accused me of things that were so wrong," she told the newspaper. "I felt in danger. I didn’t consent to that. I am going to be defamed.”

Pensoneau touched on the group's interaction with O'Dell in his piece, describing it as "intense" but not "mean-spirited:"

As some of the anti-mascot activists started in passionately on the issue, pro-mascot panelist Kelli O’Dell, who was previously employed by the Washington Redskins and whose Internet presence is devoted to her support of the team and mascot, started to cry. My ever-dapper 1491s colleague, Bobby Wilson, offered her his own handkerchief. It was an intense situation, but never mean-spirited. O’Dell, though, started to accuse us of ambushing and lying and “how dare you.”

Overall, it appears filming the 'Daily Show' segment wasn't a fully enjoyable experience for either side of the Redskins naming debate.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...+%28TPMNews%29

You Stay Classy, NFL fanatics, sounds like a bunch of Repug/tea bagger voters.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins

i find it particularly patronizing that you think that i am white. Cool story too. Too bad tribal councils are the groups that are bringing suit.



The trademark suit was brought by native americans as well.

---

Are you a gook?

IMO it would be fine to keep the indian, the logo isnt offensive but change the name to a respectful one (like Braves, they dont get nearly as much flak because of this), I think that would be legal and fair. the "white" (though the irish were/always have been a minority themselves) mascots are named flatteringly, redskin is a slur. I grew up in DC and I always considered it offensive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by baseline bum

I have no faith in Washington to come up with a decent name after the Wizards and Nationals. It'll probably be some fag crap involving flags or something similarly retarded.

---

how about the Washington Gangsters? After all, DC has one of the highest gun crime rates.

Oh wait...

The PC crowd would say that gives a bad rep to gangsters...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Capt Bringdown

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bqa1K1NCQAAqWVS.png

---

LOL...

Maybe the Washington Obamatrons?

OK, so they lose their patent. That means others can market without paying royalties. They can still keep the name. Right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DarrinS

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_logo.svg.png

---

My high school used that as well.

edit add..

We probably had 10 times as many Native Americans than Blacks or Hispanics at this school.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

OK, so they lose their patent. That means others can market without paying royalties. They can still keep the name. Right?

---

Yes they can still keep the offensive name.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

Yes they can still keep the offensive name.

---

If you banned everything that a small percentage of the population didn't like, what would be left?

Only a small number of Native Americans are offended by using the name. Far more are proud of it!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If you banned everything that a small percentage of the population didn't like, what would be left?

Only a small number of Native Americans are offended by using the name. Far more are proud of it!

---

I didn't say it should be banned but it's still an offensive term.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnakeBoy

I didn't say it should be banned but it's still an offensive term.

---

Bullshit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qbYs7QagnDc

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

If you banned everything that a small percentage of the population didn't like, what would be left?

---

Almost everything.