Coming soon: the NFL's D.C. Cabs?

If it's ok for everyone, and if not one person currently, formerly or soon-to-be born objects, I propose we call them the Washington Cute Kittens who make nice housepets and would never bite anyone because they've lovable creatures.
I mean, that shouldn't offend anyone right? While we're at it, can we just go ahead and just get rid of sports in general? All those poor guys who lose have got to feel bad about the results and we wouldn't want that, right?
Or, maybe if you don't like my first suggestion, perhaps we can call them the Washington Everyone is a Unique Snowflakes. The logo can be an orange slice and a participation trophy so no one's "feelings" get hurt.
#WhatAJoke

 

schiez, do you think everyone will get a trophy?

 

The guy who has never left his insular hometown where displaying the Confederate flag is the ultimate fashion symbol needs to be brought into the national conversation regarding the appropriateness of racist nicknames.

 

I don't live in my hometown, but you keep on sprouting nonsense. You're wrong more often than you're right.

 

Serious question: could this ruling set a precedent for other organizations or businesses to lose trademark registration? Or is this more of a stand alone case? Two examples came to mind to make me ask. First, Red Man Tobacco. Second, what about variations on the Redskins name? My high school's cross-town rival is the Red Raiders. Unlike Texas Tech's masked cowboy, these Red Raiders have an Indian mascot. Does the high school get off on technicality?

 

Still trademarked.

 

There are all sorts of nicknames that one could choose to be offended about. People who go through life looking for something to take offense over rarely fail to find it.

 

There's a handful of high schools in my area that are going through the same debate now. They've been known as "Redskins", "Braves" or "Warriors" for as long as anyone can remember. Now they're having school board debates over whether or not to change the nicknames (have no idea if anyone has actual filed a lawsuit, threatened a suit, thought about a suit, etc.)

Just a lot of PC crap run amok.

 

Speaking of the devil (or in this case, the principal):

http://mobile.philly.com/blogs/?wss=%2Fphilly%2Fblogs%2Fattytood%2F&id=263717031

 

So, you're just going to keep doing this until somebody calls you a racist? Is that the goal?

Ok, racist troll. You're a racist. That is why you are on this side of the discussion. Happy?

 

Warriors is completely generic and non derogatory. There were and are warriors in all human societies. It's also alliterative with Washington. All they'd have to do is bring back the helmets they used in the mid-60s with spears on the sides as logos, and bingo, you mollify the critics without much altering the team's identity.

 

There are already precedents, which the TTAB cited extensively in its opinion, that stand for the proposition that trademark protection is not extended to product names that are disparaging. The board relied heavily on two in particular - Heeb Media, which involved a company wanting to market athletic clothing called "HEEB," and Squaw Valley, which involved a ski resort located in a place commonly called squaw valley - home of the '60 Winter Olympics. The resort also used some Indian-themed materials in its marketing and was seeking protection for a "Squaw" line of clothing. The result there was a split decision that "Squaw Valley" could be trademarked as it relates to the location, but other "Squaw" variations could not because it is disparaging.