|
GaussianCopula posted:The "technicallity" was that the people brining the complaint did so after the trademark was in effect for quiete a long time and the courts ruled there is some kind of statue of limitations on filling complaints. Now they looked for younger indians that were underaged until very recently and hope to avoid this problem that way. The issue was something called, laches, which isn't at all the same as a statute of limitations. A statute of limitations says "the situation has been around for X amount of time, it's unchangeable now." Laches says "you knew about it and didn't do anything about it for X years, you (and only you) are not allowed to challenge it." The new plaintiffs turned 18 and filed immediately, so laches won't apply. (And there's minimal law on this, but if the cancellation sticks on appeal, there's at least one case that suggests that unregistrable marks can't be enforced via the lanham act. And basically all states use a mini-lanham with an identical provision for canceling disparaging marks, so the state law analogues won't be usable either. Good luck enforcing your common law rights without going through either the Lanham or mini-Lanham statutory provisions, Snyder!)
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:20
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:http://www.forbes.com/nfl-valuations/ That has a lot more to do with Green Bay's unique ownership structure than with the Redskins being a more valuable franchise.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2014 23:33
|
|
|
bewbies posted:Legal goons, what do you think the basis for the appeal will be? 15 U.S.C. 1071. Statutory right to appeal decisions of the TTAB to the federal courts.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 02:46
|
|
|
Well, the first case was initially bounced both on laches and on lack of evidence. It was appealed, court of appeals rules on laches and omitted the substantive issue since laches decided it, remanded, district decided purely on laches. So it's not quite as bleak as all that. Then again, DDC is not the friendliest place for causes like this one.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
TubeStank posted:Considering other trademark attempts featuring the word "redskins" have been rejected, including "Washington Redskins Cheerleaders," I have a feeling that the team will also lose the appeal: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2014/01/28/from-pork-rinds-to-cheerleaders-the-trademark-office-rejects-the-word-redskins/ Different decision maker and different standards of decision, though. I don't think any of those new attempts have made it to court yet, they're just examiner rejections (and possibly a TTAB decision or two.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
Febreeze posted:While I do think they might actually uphold today's ruling, the question is how long will the appeal last anyway? It took so long to get this far, how long do we have to wait for true victory? If it happens? Court docket times are significantly faster than TTAB appeals, but it's still going to be 2-3 years most likely.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 19, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
axeil posted:So I was talking with a friend about this last night and she said she wasn't really sure why the patent office was able to invalidate the trademark. Her argument was that invalidating it runs afoul of the First Ammendment. Does anyone have any more detailed legal info about the legal validity of removing the trademark? I tried to read the decision but I'm not a lawyer and it just confused me. The short version: Section 2 of the Lanham Act bans registration (and maybe, depending on who you ask, enforcement) of slur trademarks, where registration confers certain benefits. It doesn't ban using those words, just the benefits provided under law. Therefore, no First Amendment problem. (Section 2 actually has been challenged on a First Amendment basis, since it conditions a government-provided benefit on abstention from First Amendment rights. It's not implausible as a theory, but it also hasn't been successful in court since commercial speech receives somewhat lessened First Amendment protection.)
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2014 18:39
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 9, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Cole posted:I didn't even know Redskins was a racial slur until people suddenly started getting butt hurt by it 80+ years after it originated. You being a moron doesn't eliminate the fact that it's understood to be offensive by a large swath of people and particularly by those it's targeted at.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 29, 2014 15:54
|
|