I’m not sure what you have in mind. There’s already free speech exceptions to trademark law, and if you’re talking about American Indians being offended that’s not a legal right.
And there’s no legal right for the Washington Redskins to have a trademark that violates the rules for trademarks.
2 Likes
But if other more offensive trademarks are typically granted then the Redskins are not violating the rules for trademarks.
They might be, if the rules are arbitrary and capricious. They could always switch to Calvinball.
1 Like
I don’t think “typically” has been shown (or even alleged) by anyone.
In any case, the rules exist. You may argue that they aren’t properly enforced, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t being violated.
2 Likes
Isn’t that be the point of the Washington Redskin’s lawyers argument?
So you can have a law that’s infrequently enforced (ie the speed limit) but you can’t have a law that’s only selectively enforced (ie only black people will be given speeding tickets).
Of course that example does tend to happen, but it’s illegal and is sometimes pursued by the justice department.
Mets farm team
2 Likes
But once again, in order for it to be selective enforcement, it would have be selective enforcement against a group with some common characteristic, or you’d have to have a pretty strong case that they were going after you specifically. You can’t prove selective enforcement by saying, “Why me?” What possible criterion could have been used to single out the Washington team here? The only way they were selected is that there was a complaint against them by an offended group. But it’s not selective enforcement to respond to complaints.
3 Likes
That’s true, and if it’s merely the fact that there was a complaint and the court’s and society’s standards have shifted on what an offensive trademark is then the ruling is fine.
However I don’t think this is the case because I don’t think the offense standard it typically applied that strictly. Rather I suspect it was the result of political pressure or a motivation to apply the standard in a more politically correct manner. If so then I think a selective enforcement argument does exist because the offense alone would not have been sufficient to cause the ruling.
Boy, it’s sure a good thing that there’s no possible innuendo in sports terminology.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
