Court upholds racist team logo on technicality

Diabeetus · May 15, 2009

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/football/nfl/05/15/redskins.ap/index.html

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who contend the football team's trademark is racially offensive.

The decision issued Friday by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington doesn't address the main question of racism at the center of the case. Instead, it upholds the lower court's decision in favor of the football team on a legal technicality.

Redskins attorney Bob Raskopf said millions have been spent on the Redskins brand and the team would have suffered great economic loss if they lost the trademark registrations.

"It's a great day for the Redskins and their fans and their owner Dan Snyder," he said.

The court agreed that the seven Native Americans waited too long to challenge the trademark first issued in 1967. They initially won -- the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office panel canceled the trademarks in 1999 -- but they've suffered a series of defeats in the federal courts since then.

U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly overturned that decision in 2003 in part because the suit was filed decades after the first Redskins trademark was issued. The U.S. Court of Appeals then sent the case back to Kollar-Kotelly, noting that the youngest of the plaintiffs was only 1-year-old in 1967 and therefore could not have taken legal action at the time.

Kollar-Kotelly issued a new ruling last summer that rejected that argument. She wrote that the youngest plaintiff turned 18 in 1984 and therefore waited almost eight years after coming of age to join the lawsuit.

The judge did not address whether the Redskins name is offensive or racist. She wrote that her decision was not based on the larger issue of "the appropriateness of Native American imagery for team names."

A three-judge panel of the appeals court upheld that decision Friday.

The plaintiffs have a backup plan: A group of six American Indians ranging in age from 18 to 24 filed essentially the same claim two years ago, but the new case has been on hold until this one was resolved.

"We're hopeful that case will lead us ultimately to a ruling on the merits," said Philip Mause, attorney for the American Indians. "We're very confident about our position on the merits. We think this term is disparaging of Native Americans."

Raskopf said it's all too late.

"The time when the case could have been brought was 1967," he said. "So it's not going to get any easier for anybody to bring the case now."
Click to expand...

Title edited to reflect they didn't rule on the claim of racism. Logo's probably second to Chief Wahoo, though.

Starman · May 15, 2009

"Well, we've been spending so much money being racists for 70 years, it would be unfair not to let us continue." : :

Double J · May 15, 2009

What a total non-issue.

Diabeetus · May 15, 2009

It's something I can't fathom still being a team name.

Can you imagine there being a whiteskins, blackskins or yellowskins allowed in any league? If "tradition" is the only reason this nickname is still around, it needs to be given the boot.

Double J · May 15, 2009

In the province where I live, there are at least two minor/junior lacrosse programs operated on or just outside Indian reserves. One is called the Red Rebels, one is called the Red Devils. If they don't find the "red" adjective offensive, why should anyone else?

Diabeetus · May 15, 2009

Double J said:

In the province where I live, there are at least two minor/junior lacrosse programs operated on or just outside Indian reserves. One is called the Red Rebels, one is called the Red Devils. If they don't find the "red" adjective offensive, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

If they don't mind, that's fine. But there are clearly people who object to it in this case.

outofplace · May 15, 2009

Double J said:

In the province where I live, there are at least two minor/junior lacrosse programs operated on or just outside Indian reserves. One is called the Red Rebels, one is called the Red Devils. If they don't find the "red" adjective offensive, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

Why do they get to be the ones to determine what is offensive? The people we might normally group together as Native American encompass a very diverse group with different traditions. Lumping them all together is common, but inappropriate.

Armchair_QB · May 15, 2009

Double J said:

In the province where I live, there are at least two minor/junior lacrosse programs operated on or just outside Indian reserves. One is called the Red Rebels, one is called the Red Devils. If they don't find the "red" adjective offensive, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

Unless the mascot is one that is clearly identifiable as an Indian, there isn't a problem with using the word "red" in that situation.

It's just a color.

Ace · May 15, 2009

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but Redskins has to be the most racist and offensive nickname for a major sports team in the United States and has been for some time.

Double J · May 15, 2009

Armchair_QB said:

Double J said:

In the province where I live, there are at least two minor/junior lacrosse programs operated on or just outside Indian reserves. One is called the Red Rebels, one is called the Red Devils. If they don't find the "red" adjective offensive, why should anyone else?
Click to expand...

Unless the mascot is one that is clearly identifiable as an Indian, there isn't a problem with using the word "red" in that situation.

It's just a color.
Click to expand...

The Red Rebels

Piotr Rasputin · May 15, 2009

Ace said:

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but Redskins has to be the most racist and offensive nickname for a major sports team in the United States and has been for some time.
Click to expand...

"Chiefs" I get, because it's not like Kansas City is the most cosmopolitan area. Unless you like barbecue.

[/shamelessdigfromRaiderfan]

But to have a team called "Redskins" representing the United States' capital city? This shouldn't survive another generation.

Diabeetus · May 15, 2009

Piotr Rasputin said:

Ace said:

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but Redskins has to be the most racist and offensive nickname for a major sports team in the United States and has been for some time.
Click to expand...

"Chiefs" I get, because it's not like Kansas City is the most cosmopolitan area. Unless you like barbecue.

[/shamelessdigfromRaiderfan]

But to have a team called "Redskins" representing the United States' capital city? This shouldn't survive another generation.
Click to expand...

Chiefs are actually named for H. Roe Bartel, who started the Mic-O-Say (similar to Boy Scouts) program. His nickname was Chief, and he played a big part in getting the team to move to town.

Log in or Sign up

Court upholds racist team logo on technicality

Diabeetus Active Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Double J Active Member

Diabeetus Active Member

Double J Active Member

Diabeetus Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

Double J Active Member

Piotr Rasputin New Member

Diabeetus Active Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Court upholds racist team logo on technicality

Diabeetus Active Member

Starman Well-Known Member

Double J Active Member

Diabeetus Active Member

Double J Active Member

Diabeetus Active Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

Ace Well-Known Member

Double J Active Member

Piotr Rasputin New Member

Diabeetus Active Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches