Official Etsy Policy: Anything with REDSKINS Logo FORBIDDEN (Swastikas A-Okay!)

Redskins Controversy ‘Not High’ on Native American Agenda, Says Interior Secretary

Featured Image -- 47860

‘Look! Squirrel!’ Redskins Controversy: Does Trademark Law Violate First Amendment?

Supreme Court Affirmitive Action

Regulatory adventurism–an arm of government being misused for a political, narrow, misguided agenda–naturally raises legal questions. Can you imagine so much effort on the part of a tyrannical minority of activists about a ruling that most Americans, and most native Americans think is a pointless solution to an imaginary problem?

For, Ken Kuklowski writes:

Yesterday’s decision from the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to cancel the trademark protections of the Washington Redskins professional football team, ruling that the word “redskins” is disparaging to Americans descended from indigenous people instead of immigrants, has sparked an energetic conversation raising serious legal and constitutional issues.

“To be clear: the federal government is not banning anyone from using the term ‘redskins.’”

Trademark law permits PTO to reject trademark protection to terms that PTO finds disparaging. Specifically, PTO may deny trademark registration under 15 U.S.C. § 1052 when a term, “consists of or comprises immoral, deceptive, or scandalous matter; or matter which may disparage or falsely suggest a connection with persons, living or dead, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols, or bring them into contempt, or disrepute.”

“…Instead, PTO is saying they no longer have the right to use the term exclusively to retain all financial benefits from its use.”

Lawyers for the Redskins argued that the trademark is (1) old and (2) well used, and (3) has tremendous financial value as a brand name. And one judge on the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board dissented from the decision to revoke the Redskins’ longstanding trademark protection. Read the rest of this entry »

Terry McAuliffe, the Redskins, and the Big Lies of Liberalism

It’s no secret that I’m a fan of Jonah Goldberg’s column (and current book) his good-humored, scholarly, pop-culture-savy approach to the often dreadful business of exposing liberalism’s falsehoods never fail to entertain. It’s rare to see Goldberg’s temperature rise. This column is an exception. I can almost see the veins popping out on his forehead. –The Butcher

terryMcJonah Goldberg writes: Some of you may recall this scornful column I wrote the other week mocking the myth that there’s anything socially libertarian about liberalism. If not, you might recall a couple dozen Corner posts on the same theme. It is easily one of my biggest peeves in politics. But there is something worse than lying about being a libertarian on social issues. It’s lying about being a libertarian on economic issues.

I haven’t been following the Virginia gubernatorial race too closely, but I managed to catch the last few minutes of the debate last night. Chuck Todd asked the candidates whether they think the Redskins should keep their name. Terry McAuliffe responded: “I don’t think the governor ought to be telling private businesses what they should do about their business.”

“Even if it’s offensive to people?” Todd interjected.

“I don’t think the governor should be telling private businesses . . .” McAuliffe repeated. Todd interrupted. Asking what his personal opinion was. McAuliffe stuck to his bogus answer: “As governor, I’m not going to tell Dan Snyder or anybody else what they should [do] with their business, and I want to congratulate the Redskins, because I went down to the training practice here in Richmond and it is spectacular.”

Now, in what way is this remotely true? Don’t get me wrong, I think McAuliffe’s answer is basically right. And for all I know he won’t pressure the Redskins to change their name. But is that because he’s the sort of guy who doesn’t tell businesses what they should do? Or is it because he’s the sort of guy who says what audiences want to hear about their beloved football franchise? If the question was about businesses that refuse to comply with Obamacare’s requirement to pay for birth control, would he still be the sort of guy who doesn’t think politicians should be telling businesses what to do? Is he for no environmental regulations? Against all zoning? Is he now against civil-rights laws that tell business who. they must serve, hire, etc.? Read the rest of this entry »