Posted on 05/15/2009 10:08:46 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
WASHINGTON – The Washington Redskins won another legal victory Friday in a 17-year fight with a group of American Indians who argue 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.
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.
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
I always though “redskin” was right up there with “injun” definitely in the slur area. Of course there is no right not to be offended, people who don’t like the team’s name should root against them (really easy to do these days because they stink), boycott them, boycott the whole league if they want, but don’t make it a legal matter.
The one case where I agree with the litigants in these mascot wars is the Cleveland Indians symbol which is truly an offensive caricature.
Considering my boys are currently playing golf, I can't disagree. I do think the young Hawks can skate with Detroit, though.
Let's see if Osgood is really Osgreat.
I’m 1/4 Cherokee and I’m not offended, either!
I think thin skinned is more appropriate for some... >:-}
Yep!
What’s a Hab??
As a person of Native American descent, on both sides of the family, I am NOT the least bit offended, in fact I love the Redskins.
BINGO!
I’m with you Aunt B
That’s funny, I’m part Cherokee and it doesn’t bother me. Like the Seminole tribe that indorsed FSU usage of the tribes name for it’s football team. They are proud of it.
I would be too.
A local high school has the name ‘redskins.’ I have wondered about someone yelling, “racism.” Then dump Native Americans completely. Change the logo to redskin on the necks of cowboys. Or change to a redskined reptile like snake or lizzard. “Indians” will be forgotten as nothing more than people in old westerns.
I kind of like Chief Wahoo!
We were at Progressive Field in Cleveland (for the first time) in late April for the Boston Red Sox vs Cleveland Indians series. I was surprised that Chief Wahoo is still pretty prominent in the team stores as a mascot, but disappointed that he is not the ACTUAL mascot for the team. They had some strange pink or purple creature named "Slider", I think. Very minor league mascot, IMO. I assume they had to create Slider to downplay the un-PC Chief Wahoo.
The Montreal Canadiens. NHL hockey team
As you may know, the team name has much to do with star player Louis Sockalexis, from the Penobscot tribe.
How about the White Jox?
Is the Chief's image still on the Indians' caps?
You have a right to be offended, but do I not have a right to offend?
the Hawks have the best sweaters in hockey!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.