Posts: 1013
Threads: 10
Joined: January 20, 2014
Reputation:
26
RE: Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection due to 'disparaging' name
June 19, 2014 at 11:57 am
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 12:19 pm by No_God.)
They should change it to the Blackskins.
Then see how fast the name changes.
(don't hurt me... just a joke)
No but really, that wouldn't be ok, so why is it ok for them to be named the "Redskins". I think they should change the name.
Posts: 1965
Threads: 83
Joined: June 15, 2010
Reputation:
37
RE: Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection due to 'disparaging' name
June 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm
First world problems right here folks. I couldn't care less. Wake me up when the NFL is finally paying taxes.
"How is it that a lame man does not annoy us while a lame mind does? Because a lame man recognizes that we are walking straight, while a lame mind says that it is we who are limping." - Pascal
Posts: 7969
Threads: 38
Joined: March 18, 2014
Reputation:
54
RE: Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection due to 'disparaging' name
June 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm
(This post was last modified: June 19, 2014 at 11:44 pm by Ravenshire.)
(June 18, 2014 at 7:32 pm)Tonus Wrote: Because the NFL depends on merchandising for a shitload of money, and because most merchandising revenue is shared (the Cowboys are the exception), the loss of trademark protection might cost the league some merchandising dollars. That could put enough pressure on them to put pressure on the Redskins' owner to change the name.
This is the NFL we're talking about. The ass-hats who sue over the use of the term "Superbowl," even when the infringement is for a non-profit. If the deadskins do lose their trademark, the NFL will force them to change it immediately.
Just curious, but how are the Cowboys an exception to merchandising revenue sharing?
(June 19, 2014 at 12:33 pm)Jaysyn Wrote: First world problems right here folks. I couldn't care less. Wake me up when the NFL is finally paying taxes.
While the NFL doesn't (non-profit and all that), the individual franchises (where most of the money goes) do.
Thief and assassin for hire. Member in good standing of the Rogues Guild.
Posts: 7140
Threads: 12
Joined: March 14, 2013
Reputation:
72
RE: Washington Redskins stripped of trademark protection due to 'disparaging' name
June 20, 2014 at 5:27 am
(June 19, 2014 at 11:42 pm)GalacticBusDriver Wrote: Just curious, but how are the Cowboys an exception to merchandising revenue sharing?
The Cowboys are not under the same umbrella licensing agreement as the other teams, and can make their own deals for everything from stadium sponsorship to team apparel and other merchandise.
This Forbes article has a decent summary of how they did it and how they use that exception to this day.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould