• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Redskins, the patent office, zero complaints: Politifact vs. Conservative Media

Bitter, angry and hate-filled? Based on what? I might be inclined to agree if there were actually something at stake here. Rebranding a team is hardly unprecedented, nor is it likely to permanently mar Washington's franchise. But again, I'm not that concerned either way.
Chief Joseph was a great leader. Your use of the name Joe is an insult to the Nez Perce nation. I demand you change it immediately because someone might have their feelerz hurt.
 
It's laughable to watch Grim17 say there was no complaint, when that is exactly what needed to happen for the first case (1992) on this matter to take place. Let's look at the word "complaint" in accordance within the US legal context:

Complaint - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In legal terminology, a complaint is any formal legal document that sets out the facts and legal reasons (see: cause of action) that the filing party or parties (the plaintiff(s)) believes are sufficient to support a claim against the party or parties against whom the claim is brought (the defendant(s)) that entitles the plaintiff(s) to a remedy (either money damages or injunctive relief)]). For example, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP) that govern civil litigation in United States courts provide that a civil action is commenced with the filing or service of a pleading called a complaint. Civil court rules in states that have incorporated the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure use the same term for the same pleading.

A complaint was filed as far back as 1992. That is what brought the first lawsuit to the attention of the USPTO. Stating that there had been no complaints, that is what PolitiFact declared false and rightly so. Why? Let's go back in time shall we:

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1992, Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, with six other prominent Native Americans represented by the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis, petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel the trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc. They based their lawsuit on the claim that federal trademark law states that certain trademark registrations are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable."

A second case was filed, Blackhorse v. Pro-Football, Inc.,[91] with younger plaintiffs whose standing might not be hindered by laches.[92] On June 18, 2014, the TTAB again voted to cancel the six trademarks held by the team in a two to one decision that held that the term "redskins" is disparaging to a "substantial composite of Native Americans", and this is demonstrated "by the near complete drop-off in usage of 'redskins' as a reference to Native Americans beginning in the 1960s."

In short:

1. Politifact ruled that there had been complaints brought to the attention of the USPTO.
2. It did this in consideration of the definition of complaint in the US legal context. In the US legal context, a complaint is what is filed in order for there to be a lawsuit (civil action).
3. It did this because as far back as 1992, a complaint had been filed in the first lawsuit on this matter.

Conclusion:

1. Grim17 has no idea what the word complaint means or how the USPTO works.
2. He was absolutely ignorant of the FACT that a complaint is what is needed in order to begin any civil action (lawsuit).
3. PolitiFact is more than clear about the fact that they are addressing the word complaint within the context of civil action which is what the USPTO examines as per their own admission:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not solicit public comment like other government agencies as they consider new rules and regulations. It’s not built that way.

...

Its process prescribed by the U.S. Code works similar to a legal trial, in which only the parties involved can submit evidence. There could be one letter or 1,000, but it’s not going to make a difference in whether a trademark is granted or canceled. Put another way, it’s not part of the process in the way that the Environmental Protection Agency or Federal Trade Commission reviews public input before considering a new rule or regulation.

...

In this case, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office acts more like the Supreme Court, in that the court wouldn’t solicit or consider your opinion of the health care law before it issued a ruling.

Personal comment:

I found this little bit by Zyphlin really funny:

Zyphlin said:
It's clear from the Washington times piece that the headline is speaking about officially submitted public complaints, not "complaints" in a broad sense of the word.

An officially submitted complaint was what happened in 1992 when the first lawsuit was examined by the USPTO. This is a case of Grim17 trying to be an armchair lawyer and not even understanding what he is arguing against. The USPTO could have had a million people send in complaints about the Redskins and it wouldn't have mattered one bit because the USPTO doesn't really give a rat's ass about random assholes sending in personal complaint. A lawsuit, in accordance to the USPTO begins with a complaint being filed. However, what is a complaint for the USPTO?

http://www.uspto.gov/patents/litigation/Patent_Infringement_Lawsuit.jsp

A patent lawsuit begins with the filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by the patent holder. If a lawsuit is filed against you, the patent owner must serve two documents on you: (1) a document called a “complaint,” which explains the accusations made against you; and (2) a document called a “summons.” The patent owner may first send a “demand” letter that states that you are potentially infringing the claims of a patent and request that you pay for a license to use the patented invention, or it may go straight to court.

This is not a complaint in the sense of "Oh my gawz! Redskins are terrible!". This complaint is a legal document with accusations and a summons. Again, a complaint had been filed in the first lawsuit in 1992. That clearly makes Politifact's assertion on this matter
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.
to be correct
 
Last edited:
It's laughable to watch Grim17 say there was no complaint, when that is exactly what needed to happen for the first case (1992) on this matter to take place.

Look, the Washington Times article is totally accurate. This is what it said:

...But despite widespread media attention and a legal fight that goes back more than a decade, the USPTO recently acknowledged there’s hardly been an avalanche of public complaints filed with the agency.

In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling.

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress or the public produced just 13 pages of records.

They go on to explain what those 13 pages contained.

The story also acknowledged the 5 Native Americans who's objection to the name led to the board hearing in the first place:

The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians. After the ruling, she called the decision a “great victory for Native Americans and all Americans,” saying the team’s name was “racist and derogatory.”

So it's obvious that there was no attempt to hide that those 5 people did in fact complain.

When it comes to procedure, here is what the story said:

Rebecca Tushnet, a law professor at Georgetown University, said the patent office isn’t like the Federal Trade Commission or Food and Drug Administration, where there can be a public comment procedure for individual cases.

“If you don’t have a particular stake there’s no obvious point at which your input can be given,” she said. “I’m sure that doesn’t stop people from sending in correspondence, but I honestly wouldn’t know how to go about getting it read in an individual case.”

Just as I said, the Washington Times story was accurate, but Politifact does what liberals always do, they try and parse words to spin things to their advantage. That's why they chose to evaluate opinions about the Times story from bloggers, rather than evaluating the actual story itself. It was a cheap, dishonest tactic to try and convince their readers that there were public complaints lodged with the USPTO (other than the one lodged formally) about the Redskins name, when there weren't... and also to imply that the Washington Times story was false, and conservative bloggers were lying.

It was pathetically partisan hackery by Politifact.
 
Look, the Washington Times article is totally accurate. This is what it said:

They go on to explain what those 13 pages contained.

The story also acknowledged the 5 Native Americans who's objection to the name led to the board hearing in the first place:

So it's obvious that there was no attempt to hide that those 5 people did in fact complain.

When it comes to procedure, here is what the story said:

Just as I said, the Washington Times story was accurate, but Politifact does what liberals always do, they try and parse words to spin things to their advantage. That's why they chose to evaluate opinions about the Times story from bloggers, rather than evaluating the actual story itself. It was a cheap, dishonest tactic to try and convince their readers that there were public complaints lodged with the USPTO (other than the one lodged formally) about the Redskins name, when there weren't... and also to imply that the Washington Times story was false, and conservative bloggers were lying.

It was pathetically partisan hackery by Politifact.

Let me state my point a bit clearer for you all:

The USPTO defines a complaint in this manner:

Patent Litigation - I've Been Sued...

A patent lawsuit begins with the filing of a complaint alleging patent infringement by the patent holder. If a lawsuit is filed against you, the patent owner must serve two documents on you: (1) a document called a “complaint,” which explains the accusations made against you; and (2) a document called a “summons.” The patent owner may first send a “demand” letter that states that you are potentially infringing the claims of a patent and request that you pay for a license to use the patented invention, or it may go straight to court.

What can we gather from this? Well, we can gather two things. The first is that a complaint for the USPTO is not just some guy phoning in to tell them how he feels about the Redskins or for that matter any trademark. The second is that a lawsuit, at least for the USPTO, has two component. The first is a complaint and the second is a summons.

Now, if we go back to 1992:

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In 1992, Suzan Shown Harjo, President of the Morning Star Institute, with six other prominent Native Americans represented by the Dorsey & Whitney law firm of Minneapolis, petitioned the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to cancel the trademark registrations owned by Pro-Football, Inc. They based their lawsuit on the claim that federal trademark law states that certain trademark registrations are not legal if they are "disparaging, scandalous contemptuous, or disreputable."

In short, in 1992, a lawsuit was brought to the USPTO. That lawsuit included a complaint and a summons. However, how do we know PolitiFact isn't talking about some guy just spouting off his mouth? Well - the real question is - even if they did mean it, would it change anything in this issue? Of course not. Why? Well, as per the admission of the USPTO:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received zero complaints about Washington Redskins, bloggers say | PunditFact

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office does not solicit public comment like other government agencies as they consider new rules and regulations. It’s not built that way.

Its process prescribed by the U.S. Code works similar to a legal trial, in which only the parties involved can submit evidence. There could be one letter or 1,000, but it’s not going to make a difference in whether a trademark is granted or canceled. Put another way, it’s not part of the process in the way that the Environmental Protection Agency or Federal Trade Commission reviews public input before considering a new rule or regulation.

So... the Washington Post is wrong because it fails to mention that in 1992 there was a lawsuit for just this very issue. That lawsuit required a complaint. However, even if the Washington Post hadn't been wrong (which it is as there was a lawsuit in 1992) and people had sent in 1,000,000 letters to complain about the Redskins, the USPTO wouldn't really have cared because that's not how they work.

They could have gotten a few thousand letters per second on the matter and as long as it's not a formally drawn document (like the one used by Susan Shown Harjo in 1992), the USPTO would simply file under paper to be recycled.

Conclusion:

This is a case where a few facts have been brought to the light. The first is that you has no clue how the USPTO works. The second is that the Washington Times in an attempt to draw in readers ignored the fact that even if those 13 pages it found had been filled with complaints, not a single one would have mattered to the USPTO unless they were the type brought by the Harjo in 1992. Again, this is you trying to play gotcha about something you clearly don't understand to begin with. It's this simple Grim17:

1. The USPTO doesn't take into consideration public complaints (this type: Omgz zee Redskins) when deciding policy or whether it will deny/approve new trademarks.
2. Any lawsuit it examines needs to have two things (a complaint and a summons).
3. There have been 2 lawsuits on this matter. The first in 1992, the second in 2013. For those to happen, there needed to be complaints. That makes PolitiFact's assertion on there being complaints to be true.

Please Grim17, you're showing you clearly have no clue what you're discussing.
 
Last edited:
It's this simple Grim17:

1. The USPTO doesn't take into consideration public complaints (this type: Omgz zee Redskins) when deciding policy or whether it will deny/approve new trademarks.
2. Any lawsuit it examines needs to have two things (a complaint and a summons).
3. There have been 2 lawsuits on this matter. The first in 1992, the second in 2013. For those to happen, there needed to be complaints. That makes PolitiFact's assertion on there being complaints to be true.

Please Grim17, you're showing you clearly have no clue what you're discussing.

1. Nobody claimed they did.
2. I know that and so did the Washington Times. It takes a colossal disregard of common sense to think that they were trying to say that the 5 Native Americans didn't complain, when they included them in the story.
3. The Washington Times story came from a freedom of information request, which yielded 13 pages of documents, and none of those correspondences complained about the name prior to the decision. That was what their story said, and it was true.


I love the games you liberals play to try and turn fact into fiction, and fiction into fact. I'll give you all credit, the way you manipulate the English language is brilliant, but it's never the less, totally dishonest.
 
1. Nobody claimed they did.
2. I know that and so did the Washington Times. It takes a colossal disregard of common sense to think that they were trying to say that the 5 Native Americans didn't complain, when they included them in the story.
3. The Washington Times story came from a freedom of information request, which yielded 13 pages of documents, and none of those correspondences complained about the name prior to the decision. That was what their story said, and it was true.

I'm going to type really slowly....

The Washington Times claimed there were no complaints. Conservative bloggers ran with it. That is entirely false as per the fact that in order for there to have been 2 lawsuits, there needed to be AT LEAST 2 complaints filed through the USPTO's legal channels. Now, you can disregard the last lawsuit (well, the Washington Times clearly did) but the fact that it completely ignored the first lawsuit shows some pretty shoddy reporting on the WT's part. The newspaper never even clarified that the type of complaints it was looking for would have absolutely no bearing on the denial or approval of a trademark. However, here is the article's opening sentence:

Redskins name drew no public complaints, patent office reveals - Washington Times

The recent decision by an obscure administrative law board to cancel the Washington Redskins‘ trademark registrations came despite the fact the agency hadn’t received a single letter from a member of the public complaining about the team’s name, records show.

Now, I don't know about you - but I'd consider the people who brought the first complaint to be members of the public. That on its own makes half the claim by the Washington Times false. But wait! There is more:

Washington Times said:
A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from.....the public produced just 13 pages of records.

Now, they say any communication. Here is a public hearing in 1999 with the USPTO on the matter:

Public Hearings on Official Insignia of Native American Tribes, July 12, 1999

BEFORE THE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
- - - - -
PUBLIC HEARING ON
OFFICIAL INSIGNIA OF NATIVE AMERICAN TRIBES
MONDAY, JULY 12, 1999

NANCY JONDREAU EDWARDS said:
When I was growing up on the reservation --
well, actually, I'm going to be talking about "squaw,"
because, in other words, it's an inappropriate manner,
just as the Redskins and the Wahoo
, and other names, and
what it means to the Indian people. I am highly offended
by the use of these words in the corporate sector,

NANCY JONDREAU EDWARDS said:
Talking about "Chief Wahoo," and the "Redskins,"
and the "Braves," and their corporate logos, a mascot is
something to be laughed and jeered at, and a person is
not. It is disrespectful and insensitive.
Ignorance is
not okay. Mascots, such as the Redskins, the Braves, and
corporate logos, such as Chief Wahoo, are used in sports
to generate frenzy and promote violence
under the guise of
good clean fun. Plus, these mascots are portrayed using
items which are deeply sacred to us]

JAMES W. HIGGINS said:
Indians are always told that sports mascots
honor Indians. Where is the honor in a name like
Redskins?
Where is the honor in a grinning stereotype
like the Cleveland Indians's mascot? How do you think it
makes Indians children feel? How does it make non-Indian
children feel? It teaches them racism. No wonder the
people of America are racist. Racism is taught in the
schools of America.

Public Hearings on Official Insignia of Native American Tribes, July 15, 1999

Dr Nikki Daruwala said:
It is our understanding that the Patent and
Trademark Office does not currently protect Native American
tribal insignia including names and logos. It is our belief
that this lack of legal protection has resulted in
tremendous harm to the Native American community and to
American society as a whole. The manipulation and blatant
misuse of Native American imagery is visible on a daily
basis within our society.
These includes the use of Crazy
Horse label apparel, the Washington Redskins football team,
and the Indians and Chief Wahoo of the Cleveland baseball
franchises.

These are communications between members of the public and the USPTO that were publicly available and the Washington Times completely ignored when writing the story. This is publicly available information on the USPTO's website. This isn't something a Freedom of Information Act request would cover as they'd been made public (PUBLIC HEARINGS) 15 years earlier. That makes the claim that there were no complaints by members of the public entirely false. It is false from a legal perspective and it is false from a colloquial perspective. However, here is the kicker:

A Freedom of Information Act request from The Washington Times asking for any communications from Congress

That is about the only part of the WT's claim that is true. I simply couldn't find anything on congress having communication with the USPTO on the matter. So kudos to them for not lying by omission on that fact. However, it's all for naught because I've clearly established four things:

1. There were at least 2 official complaints filed through the USPTO's accepted channels of communication. This is proven by the fact that there were 2 lawsuits. Those can't occur without those pesky complaints the WT swears don't exist.

2. The WT stressed that it used a FOIA request to determine that there had been no complaints. This however ignores the fact that in public hearings with the USPTO, members of the public had indeed voiced complaints. It also ignores the fact that a FOIA wouldn't have covered a document that had already been made public 15 years earlier.

3. The designations of these claim:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.
"Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark"

as false are the only correct ones. Not only did the USPTO receive complaints through various types of communication (public hearings, lawsuits, etc.), it received them before stripping the trademark. It received complaints in 1992, 1999 and then again in 2013.

4. The Washington Times completely ignored the fact that there had been complaints and lied by omission. It refused to even do some proper research on the matter and examine other documents. It made a claim based on carefully selected information and PolitiFact caught onto the fact and rightfully determined their quote to be false.

You've been caught endorsing a lie Grim17. Accept it and move on. You claimed PolitiFact was wrong, but they were entirely correct in their assessment of the claim's validity from both a legal perspective and a colloquial perspective.
 
Last edited:
Conclusions:

1. Politifact rating that story/claim as "false", is itself false. One of their two conclusion requires a parsing of words that defies logic, is devoid of common sense and ignores the content of the original story, while the other conclusion is a falsehood that is not supported by any of the 3 sources they used to render their ruling.

2. Claiming that "The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face" would not have been possible if they evaluated the original story, because it explained how the 5 Native Americans were responsible for the trademark being reviewed. It would have made their conclusion an absolute joke. Evaluating the claim through an opinion on a conservative blog however, allowed them to use a technicality to parse words and make that claim, because the blog never mentioned the 5 Native Americans... they only linked to the original story that did mention them.

3. It's obvious that Politifact was aware that saying "The case was opened because someone complained -- so that assertion is wrong on its face" was extremely weak, which is why they tried to strengthen it by falsely claiming that the blog article was misleading, when it wasn't.

________________________________________________________________

After reading the Politifact article and the 3 stories they used to make their ruling, it's obvious that their ruling was bogus. They took a story that looked bad for the political left that should have been ruled "Mostly true" or "True", and deemed it "False". On their front page, they falsely led their readers into believing that people had in fact complained about the Redskins name, and that the entire story that Washington Times published was a lie, bringing into question the credibility of other Conservative media outlets, conservative bloggers and conservative pundits who ran with the story. The "liberal biased" icing on the cake is the fact that Politifact chose to evaluate the story through the opinions published by conservative bloggers, rather than just evaluating the original story itself, because that was the only way they could avoid having to rule that the claim and the story were in fact true.

Liberal bias... CONFIRMED

Is this your work product? I don't see you citing any links.
 
Let me state my point a bit clearer for you all:

The USPTO defines a complaint in this manner:

Patent Litigation - I've Been Sued...



What can we gather from this? Well, we can gather two things. The first is that a complaint for the USPTO is not just some guy phoning in to tell them how he feels about the Redskins or for that matter any trademark. The second is that a lawsuit, at least for the USPTO, has two component. The first is a complaint and the second is a summons.

Now, if we go back to 1992:

Washington Redskins name controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



In short, in 1992, a lawsuit was brought to the USPTO. That lawsuit included a complaint and a summons. However, how do we know PolitiFact isn't talking about some guy just spouting off his mouth? Well - the real question is - even if they did mean it, would it change anything in this issue? Of course not. Why? Well, as per the admission of the USPTO:

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office received zero complaints about Washington Redskins, bloggers say | PunditFact



So... the Washington Post is wrong because it fails to mention that in 1992 there was a lawsuit for just this very issue. That lawsuit required a complaint. However, even if the Washington Post hadn't been wrong (which it is as there was a lawsuit in 1992) and people had sent in 1,000,000 letters to complain about the Redskins, the USPTO wouldn't really have cared because that's not how they work.

They could have gotten a few thousand letters per second on the matter and as long as it's not a formally drawn document (like the one used by Susan Shown Harjo in 1992), the USPTO would simply file under paper to be recycled.

Conclusion:

This is a case where a few facts have been brought to the light. The first is that you has no clue how the USPTO works. The second is that the Washington Times in an attempt to draw in readers ignored the fact that even if those 13 pages it found had been filled with complaints, not a single one would have mattered to the USPTO unless they were the type brought by the Harjo in 1992. Again, this is you trying to play gotcha about something you clearly don't understand to begin with. It's this simple Grim17:

1. The USPTO doesn't take into consideration public complaints (this type: Omgz zee Redskins) when deciding policy or whether it will deny/approve new trademarks.
2. Any lawsuit it examines needs to have two things (a complaint and a summons).
3. There have been 2 lawsuits on this matter. The first in 1992, the second in 2013. For those to happen, there needed to be complaints. That makes PolitiFact's assertion on there being complaints to be true.

Please Grim17, you're showing you clearly have no clue what you're discussing.
Was the 1992 challenge resolved in 1992 or is that the 'complaint' that the office acted on in 2014? If so...what was the response to the claim 22 years ago...back in 1992?
 
Was the 1992 challenge resolved in 1992 or is that the 'complaint' that the office acted on in 2014? If so...what was the response to the claim 22 years ago...back in 1992?

The first complaint was brought up in 1992. That case wouldn't be resolved until 1999. The PTO judges cancelled the Redskin registration then. That particular decision was later overturned by a DC court. However, Harjo can claim a sort of moral victory as the PTO has since refused most Redskin trademark applications.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second complaint was brought up in 2006 but wasn't resolved until 2014.

USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System

Again, Grim is not only wrong about this, he's demonstrated that he has no clue in hell what he's discussing. Apparently, neither do WT writers. The "complaints" the USPTO actually gives a **** about are the ones that come in the hands of a lawyer and with a summons. Average Joe sending in a letter to bitch about the Redskins isn't enough for a trademark to be denied/stripped or approved. So why the WT would consider their irrelevant and limited FOIA Request to be useful in proving anything is laughable. Not only does the FOIA not cover complaints which are already public knowledge, it's a demand for information which has zero relevance to the decision making process of the USPTO.

It's weak reporting at its best and yellow journalism if they knew how the USPTO procedures actually work.
 
Last edited:
Is this your work product? I don't see you citing any links.

Absolutely... I read their review by clicking on the link from politifact's front page, and from there it wrote itself.
 
And I'm going to ask you just 1 question.... Is this article accurate?

Lmao...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...t-vs-conservative-media-4.html#post1063533069

The designations of these claim:

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office "received zero complaints" about the Washington Redskins name.
"Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark"

as false are the only correct ones. Not only did the USPTO receive complaints through various types of communication (public hearings, lawsuits, etc.), it received them before stripping the trademark. It received complaints in 1992, 1999 and then again in 2013.

What's the title of your article? ;) Here Grim:

In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling.

This claim - has been proven DEMONSTRABLY false. Not only does the agency have records of complaints, the WT fails to report the fact that their FOIA request wouldn't have included any documents already part of the public record. Again, the agency isn't just claiming that according to the FOIA Request they don't have a record of complaints. They are claiming that there are no complaints whatsoever before the June 18th ruling. THAT IS FALSE.
 
Last edited:
Lmao...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/bias-...t-vs-conservative-media-4.html#post1063533069



What's the title of your article? ;) Here Grim:



This claim - has been proven DEMONSTRABLY false. Not only does the agency have records of complaints, the WT fails to report the fact that their FOIA request wouldn't have included any documents already part of the public record. Again, the agency isn't just claiming that according to the FOIA Request they don't have a record of complaints. They are claiming that there are no complaints whatsoever before the June 18th ruling. THAT IS FALSE.

So you are sticking to the story that requires one to parse words and ignore common sense... A typical tactic of the left... I'm going to go with common sense here, which I really believed you possessed until this thread.
 
So you are sticking to the story that requires one to parse words and ignore common sense... A typical tactic of the left... I'm going to go with common sense here, which I really believed you possessed until this thread.

I'm going with the approach that requires me to examine the words? As opposed to you who supposedly isn't? You started your OP on the basis that PolitiFact didn't understand what WT was really saying:

Grim17 said:
So it's obvious that both the blog and the Washington Times were saying "zero complaints other than the formal complaint that started all of this"

Here you are parsing words that aren't even there. What's funny is that even if they were saying that it doesn't make an ounce of a difference as the public record shows a different story. Remember Grim, I addressed both scenarios. In both cases, the public record completely obliterates your assertions. What I think is great is that you've proven in this thread that not only are you completely ignorant as to the facts surrounding WT's article, you're really ignorant of the USPTO's policies and procedures. Here, I'll expose all the things you've been wrong on in this thread:

1. PolitiFact was wrong when declaring this claim: "Patent office did’t receive a single public complaint before stripping Redskins trademark" as false:

Reason you're wrong (RYAW):Public record shows that in a legal sense and just common sense approaches "complaints" were made:

- The first complaint came in 1992. It resulted in a lawsuit that was resolved in 1999. - Legal complaint.
- In 1999, public records show that there were public hearings where various individuals communicated complaints on the matter. - Complaints voiced through a public hearing on the matter.​

Remember Grim, according to the WT, there were no communications between the USPTO and the general public on this matter. That is what the WT claimed and that is false.

2. The WT's FOIA requests are proof that there were no complaints.

RYAW: FOIA requests don't include public records, they include information that was previously inaccessible.

- FOIA requests are not what you think they are. FOIA requests don't apply to documents that are public record. That fact alone would have set bells off for anyone who wants to claim that there were no complaints prior to the board’s June 18 ruling. However, for some reason, the WT writers didn't even think to look for complaints that had already been made public.​

3. USPTO didn't have any complaints before July 18th, 2014

- That alone is proven false by the fact that there had already been a lawsuit on the same issue 20 years before. As well, it's proven false by the hearings where members of the public complained about the name.​

RYAW: This claim ignores public record entirely and decided to focus on a small selected amount of information.

You lost Grim17. You can either admit you've been dishonest about this entire matter or you can admit you have no clue what it is you're discussing. I've seen your little crusade against PolitiFact lately, it's cute but you definitely picked the wrong article to go after. I honestly laughed when you started ignoring facts like the USPTO having zero care for whether Average Joe sends them a letter hating/loving the Redskins. Do you know how the USTPO works? At all?
 
Last edited:
Nevertheless, it should not be the role of the patent office to determine what is and what is not politically correct. Its purpose is to register new technology and issue patents.
 
The first complaint was brought up in 1992. That case wouldn't be resolved until 1999. The PTO judges cancelled the Redskin registration then. That particular decision was later overturned by a DC court. However, Harjo can claim a sort of moral victory as the PTO has since refused most Redskin trademark applications.

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The second complaint was brought up in 2006 but wasn't resolved until 2014.

USPTO TTABVUE. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Inquiry System

Again, Grim is not only wrong about this, he's demonstrated that he has no clue in hell what he's discussing. Apparently, neither do WT writers. The "complaints" the USPTO actually gives a **** about are the ones that come in the hands of a lawyer and with a summons. Average Joe sending in a letter to bitch about the Redskins isn't enough for a trademark to be denied/stripped or approved. So why the WT would consider their irrelevant and limited FOIA Request to be useful in proving anything is laughable. Not only does the FOIA not cover complaints which are already public knowledge, it's a demand for information which has zero relevance to the decision making process of the USPTO.

It's weak reporting at its best and yellow journalism if they knew how the USPTO procedures actually work.
OK...but one-its pretty weak to claim that a case from 1992, one that was already resolved, has any relative bearing on a decision 22 years later. Also...none of your comments are inconsistent with what was cited in the article.

"In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling."

This is a proven true statement based on the FOIA info released. Immediately following in the article it states

"The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians."

There is no way you can read that article and claim it is dishonest. There ARE no complaints from the public by people offended by the nickname. There was (and has been) legal challenges (very different from a "complaint by the public").

If you sat at home and were just really offended and sent in a letter, it would be a complaint by the public. The patent office has received none of those (unless they are lying). If you were truly butthurt and got a lawyer and filed a suit it would not be a 'complaint by the public', it would be a legal challenge. Thats not even semantics...its just factual.
 
Pelicans. I think it's safe to say the fans, the NFL and Daniel Snyder would all be negatively affected by the change, but it would be short term and, in the long run, not a determining factor in the team's success athletically or financially.

Only been in New Orleans since 2002. Not a multiple decade history in the city.

I think you're underestimating the damage the redskins, and this thus the league, would experience by a top 3 US sports franchise financially has something forcefully changed that is directly tied to the primary not motivating factor of the fandom. A recent university study showed skins fans were similar to Packer and steelers fans where history and tradition were rated as the primary motivating factors for engaging in vocal / financial support
 
Since all redskins memorabilia will increase in value when the team changes their name, I hope that this liberal agenda succeeds, so I can make a ton of money off of this in a few decades! Let's hear it for the 1% (the 1% of course being liberal rage junkies who make mountains out of nonexistent mold hills)!!!!!!

You are assuming the name will be changed.
 
OK...but one-its pretty weak to claim that a case from 1992, one that was already resolved, has any relative bearing on a decision 22 years later. Also...none of your comments are inconsistent with what was cited in the article.

"In fact, the agency doesn’t have any record of correspondence from the public about the Redskins‘ name — expressing sentiments one way or another — prior to the board’s June 18 ruling."

This is a proven true statement based on the FOIA info released. Immediately following in the article it states

"The board made its ruling last month based on a legal challenge from Amanda Blackhorse and four others, who petitioned the USPTO against the Redskins, calling the team name offensive to American Indians."

There is no way you can read that article and claim it is dishonest. There ARE no complaints from the public by people offended by the nickname. There was (and has been) legal challenges (very different from a "complaint by the public").

If you sat at home and were just really offended and sent in a letter, it would be a complaint by the public. The patent office has received none of those (unless they are lying). If you were truly butthurt and got a lawyer and filed a suit it would not be a 'complaint by the public', it would be a legal challenge. Thats not even semantics...its just factual.

I still don't understand how the Patent Office can rule on somebody's opinion. This one is offended and this other one is not, so they should have stayed out of it.
 
I still don't understand how the Patent Office can rule on somebody's opinion. This one is offended and this other one is not, so they should have stayed out of it.
Studies showed that 90% werent in any way offended. Even the patent office stated they felt up to 30% were offended. What really is annoying is seeing the number of people running around that think they have some sort of right to not be offended. Mind you...thats a very very distant second to those that think of all the things within the Indian community they should be concerned about, they instead focus their attention on a football team.

And lets not forget...the woman that started this suit has already declared...the Chiefs are next. (so is it REEEAALLLLYYYYY about an offensive name?)
 
I still don't understand how the Patent Office can rule on somebody's opinion.

All it takes is a call from a white house staffer.
 
You are assuming the name will be changed.

It's called a joke. I wanted to post something like this a few weeks back when somebody said something like "white people were using this name to profit off the backs of Native Americans", but I knew I wouldn't have time for the forum again for two days, so I decided to open this can of worms later. Sadly, I haven't seen a similar post pop up recently, and I started to get impatient. Had to cut the part out about thanking the patent office for taking the first step in making it easier for me to profit off the backs of Native Americans.

I suppose it might have been funny if it had been on time. Oh well. Better luck next time.
 
Chief Joseph was a great leader. Your use of the name Joe is an insult to the Nez Perce nation. I demand you change it immediately because someone might have their feelerz hurt.

Does the name Joe have a cultural history as a racially derogatory term?
 
Only been in New Orleans since 2002. Not a multiple decade history in the city.

I think you're underestimating the damage the redskins, and this thus the league, would experience by a top 3 US sports franchise financially has something forcefully changed that is directly tied to the primary not motivating factor of the fandom. A recent university study showed skins fans were similar to Packer and steelers fans where history and tradition were rated as the primary motivating factors for engaging in vocal / financial support

You're not winning much sympathy for your position from me by dragging the Steelers into this :p But I do understand the point you're trying to make. The city of Cleveland petitioned hard to retain the name Browns when Modell shipped out to Baltimore -- and tradition and cultural pride was the cornerstone of Cleveland's argument. But I do think the cultural history of the term Redskins matters in this case and changes the math a bit, and I firmly believe Pittsburgh, Green Bay and Washington would all recover from a name change. I can certainly attest that Steelers fans are connected to the place more than the name.
 
Back
Top Bottom