MLB commissioner Rob Manfred wants Cleveland to "transition away from the Chief Wahoo logo," as MLB spokesman Pat Courtney said in a statement to David Waldstein of the New York Times.
"We have specific steps in an identified process and are making progress," Courtney added of the transition. "We are confident that a positive resolution will be reached that will be good for the game and the club." |
This has been a frequent topic on this site over the past several year so I figured I'd post this article. I wonder, with MLB's commish making this move, if Goodell will feel more pressure to try to get the Skins to change their name?
Wahoo may be going bye-bye? - (
New Window )
Honest Injun?
Chief Wahoo may be a completely different item.
That's not the legal standard though.
Scandalous/immoral 2-part test (this bar has two considerations that if both considerations are immoral, then it’s a bar):
1. “Likely meaning of the matter in question, taking into account not only dictionary definitions, but also the relationship of the matter to the other elements in the mark, the nature of the goods or services, and the manner in which the mark is used in the marketplace in connection with the goods or services”
2. Whether a “substantial composite of the general public” would regard it as offensive - 1. whether the mark is considered offensive/objectionable by a reasonable person of ordinary sensibilities.
I said I find it interesting.
I said I find it interesting.
Fair enough, though I think more people find Chief Wahoo and the Redskins name offensive than those who find an Asian-American band called "The Slants" offensive.
Get real folks your white guilt now will never take away the past, regardless of how brutal and inhuman it may seem now. But I doubt in even a small way that removing these idols / names will wipe away any of the angst of the past for these folks...And yes I do know quite a few of them and most that I know would agree with these statements.
Get real folks your white guilt now will never take away the past, regardless of how brutal and inhuman it may seem now. But I doubt in even a small way that removing these idols / names will wipe away any of the angst of the past for these folks...And yes I do know quite a few of them and most that I know would agree with these statements.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't they be pissed off about both 'conditions'?
I do know that just because you can parade out lots of examples of people who are not offended, doesn't mean your trademark is in fact, not offensive. Dan Snider has used this tactic many times to try to prove by exception that "Reskins" is not offensive. He even ran hilarious propaganda adds on Pandora a couple years back.
Try going to Merriam Websters or the Oxford English dictionary and look up the term Reskins. I think you'll find it defined as a derogatory slang term. In my mind, its not up for debate. Its offensive and it shoudl be changed.
Snider's recent legal challenges have been to use examples of other trademarks that are offensive and have not been cancelled. That seems counter intuitive to me, almost like admitting that your own trademark is offensive.
In the end, as long as he can keep the debate at "whether its offensive or not" he wins. The debate shoudl be "why haven't you changed it yet?"
Quote:
that a Chief Wahoo or Redskin are images/names of some teams. They have no problem that most of their land was taken never to be given back, while attempting to wipe them off the face of the earth. Only to be moved into the more despicable parts of the country, oh and btw live in mostly sub standard living conditions while white boys run around feeling oppressed by teams with such mascots / idols.
Get real folks your white guilt now will never take away the past, regardless of how brutal and inhuman it may seem now. But I doubt in even a small way that removing these idols / names will wipe away any of the angst of the past for these folks...And yes I do know quite a few of them and most that I know would agree with these statements.
Why does it have to be either/or? Why can't they be pissed off about both 'conditions'?
Comments like Sec 103's makes me just roll my eyes.
Who will be their new logo?
Peter from tech support?