OT: Redskins win (indirectly) in SCOTUS

[Koma]

How did this even reach SCOTUS?

I mean I get not liking the Redskins name or logo, I sure don't, but Free Speech doesn't exist to protect only the things we like to see or read or hear.

Remember near the end of last summer, after the NY appeals court overturned Berman's decision, Brady was left with the alternative of dropping the case or seeing if the Supreme Court would hear his appeal?

There were plenty of media members saying Brady should just drop it because the SCOTUS has more important things to concern itself with. A band being able to trademark the name "The Slants" is apparently one of those "more important things."

 

[fnordcircle]

Imagine being in a band that gets to say "We had to go to the Supreme Court to even be allowed to exist!"

They'll have to really suck to not at least get a big record deal. Yeah I know it was about trademarking the name, not the band itself existing, but still being able to say that about your band is pretty freaking cool.

 

[Deus Irae]

Just as an aside, this was not the only free speech case that went 8-0 today.

 

[Calhoun44]

So does having the right to trademark something give you a right to display it publicly. I guess I am curious because if so, I wonder if that means that porn or hate filled trademarks get special rights to be on TV or other public venues. I imagine not, right?

 

[Deus Irae]

So does having the right to trademark something give you a right to display it publicly. I guess I am curious because if so, I wonder if that means that porn or hate filled trademarks get special rights to be on TV or other public venues. I imagine not, right?

I don't want to take the thread too far afield, so I'll just give a basic response:

TV stations are generally not required to put things on the air against their will, and we do still have remnants of decency laws which apply to things like porn.

 

[Calhoun44]

I don't want to take the thread too far afield, so I'll just give a basic response:

TV stations are generally not required to put things on the air against their will, and we do still have remnants of decency laws which apply to things like porn.

Thanks. So having a trademark just allows you to own the rights to that name or image, no other guarantees come with it, right?

 

[patchick]

How disappointing.

Even if you loathe the Redskins' name, there's a reason this was a unanimous opinion. I'm no lawyer, but it sounds like the basic issue issue here was pretty bedrock stuff in terms of freedom of speech. Except for cases like inciting violence, the government doesn't get to decide which sentiments are acceptable to express.

 

[XLIX]

This is a good ruling. Once you carve out exceptions to free speech to oppose "offensive" speech, then that begs the question: Who gets to decide what is and isn't offensive?

 

[The Boston Patriot]

Thanks. So having a trademark just allows you to own the rights to that name or image, no other guarantees come with it, right?

Please explain what you are driving at. Ownership of those rights is significant and comes with privileges that only the owner has. He is able to legally protect those rights against violators.

 

[XLIX]

Thanks. So having a trademark just allows you to own the rights to that name or image, no other guarantees come with it, right?

I am not sure I understand the question, but let me say this:

If Fox Sports said "we will no longer broadcast that team's name" and they started calling them "the Washington Football Team," then there really isn't anything legally the team or league could do about it. (There would no doubt be some pressure exerted behind closed doors between the league and the network but there would be no basis for any sort of lawsuit - I also am assuming no contractual agreement to broadcast the team name already exists when may not necessarily be an accurate assumption)

 

[The Boston Patriot]

This was nothing but political correctness at its worst. SCOTUS needs to stand up and take a unanimous bow for rejecting stupidity so completely, something they don't often do.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

I am not sure I understand the question, but let me say this:

If Fox Sports said "we will no longer broadcast that team's name" and they started calling them "the Washington Football Team," then there really isn't anything legally the team or league could do about it. (There would no doubt be some pressure exerted behind closed doors between the league and the network but there would be no basis for any sort of lawsuit)

A more interesting question would be if the network blurred/obscured any place on the field that "Redskins" appeared or blurred/obscured the logo on the field and on helmets (not that it could realistically do the latter yet).

 

[patchick]

Thanks. So having a trademark just allows you to own the rights to that name or image, no other guarantees come with it, right?

In particular, the rights to use the term/image in a particular realm of commerce. There are tons of trademarks for the term "Patriot" in non-football-related uses, like the Jeep Patriot. So we're now free to trademark all sorts of different "Redskin" businesses.

 

[XLIX]

A more interesting question would be if the network blurred/obscured any place on the field that "Redskins" appeared or blurred/obscured the logo on the field and on helmets (not that it could realistically do the latter yet).

That is indeed something I would bet would be a contract-breaking maneuver. The NFL has clear rules on what the networks are allowed to show and alter with regards to the broadcasts. For example, networks are forbidding from placing virtual ads over the field.

I doubt the league would allow any sort of altering as you described.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

This was nothing but political correctness at its worst. SCOTUS needs to stand up and take a unanimous bow for rejecting stupidity so completely, something they don't often do.

The Lanham Act provision that was invalidated has existed since 1946. It was passed on July 5, 1946, and reported as ch. 540, title I, § 2, 60 Stat. 428.

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=60&page=428

--
EDIT:

An intellectual property lawyer friend tells me he believes this provision actually goes back to the very beginning of federal trademark law in the late 1800s.

 

[chasa]

No need to reference the race of the Redskins owner. Why did you when it's not relevant to anything?

Because it's pretty relevant when the team name he wont give up is called the "redskins".

Glasshouses and rocks and some such stuff.

Maybe change the name to the Washington Gringos.

 

[chasa]

Goodell?

General Custer, died at the battle of little big horn.

 

[goheels22002]

Too bad there isn't a team name the Palefaces or the (Tucson) Sunblocks! At this point in humanity, it's just skin tone

It would be great to change the name to the Washington Wonderbreads. That's what they used to call me when I was kid playing playground basketball in Philadelphia. Of course, whenever somebody said that I'd say something inappropriate like "Yo Mama" and stick one from 20 feet.

Anyway, SCOTUS just made it possible for me to trademark Wonderbreads, which also makes it possible for me to sue Ricky Bobby!

 

[fnordcircle]

This was nothing but political correctness at its worst.

The Lanham Act provision that was invalidated has existed since 1946. It was passed on July 5, 1946, and reported as ch. 540, title I, § 2, 60 Stat. 428.

http://uscode.house.gov/statviewer.htm?volume=60&page=428

--
EDIT:

An intellectual property lawyer friend tells me he believes this provision actually goes back to the very beginning of federal trademark law in the late 1800s.

lmfao

 

[Deus Irae]

Because it's pretty relevant when the team name he wont give up is called the "redskins".

Glasshouses and rocks and some such stuff.

Maybe change the name to the Washington Gringos.

Your argument is as inapt as it is ridiculous. Snyder didn't die on any hill. Snyder won without even being the one in the immediate fight.