One of the more irritating pillars of progressive thought is, “If I don’t want it or like it then it needs to be banned or outlawed so that no one sees, hears or experiences it!” We see this being played out all across our land. If liberals don’t like a statute or monument rather than just not visiting the park it’s in, they demand it be removed so that no one can see it. If they think a 36-ounce soda is too big, rather than simply not buy them, they seek to have them banned so no one can buy one. Other examples abound.In 2014 the Obama Patent and Trademark office cancelled the NFL’s Washington Redskins’ trademark essentially because it didn’t like it, ruling that the team’s trademarks was “disparaging to Native Americans” though no one on the three-person panel was a Native American. The Redskins immediately engaged in an appeals process and in July 2015 an Obama federal judge ordered the cancellation of the team’s trademark registrations.
The move was applauded by President Obama who was already on record as wanting the team’s name changed and even though it was none of the executive branch of the federal government’s business was spending taxpayer dollars on lawyers to force team owner Daniel Snyder to change it. Because, as previously mentioned, since he didn’t appreciate it no one should have to see or hear it. So adamant was Obama that his administration was actively engaged in the local politics of Washington D.C. to block efforts to build the team a new stadium unless they changed their name to one more of his liking.A Supreme Court ruling last week may be about to change the Redskins fortunes and serve as yet another crumbling point of the Obama legacy. In a sweeping 8-0 decision the SCOTUS Justices have just done away with provisions to the trademark clause the Obama administration used against the Redskins.
The ruling came down from an unrelated case but could clear the path for the reinstatement of the Redskins’ trademark and therefore sales of logoed and/or trademarked items like jerseys, flags, banners, etc. The case, involving a music group calling itself “The Slants” was reported on by AOL:
“A rock band called “The Slants” is singing the Supreme Court’s praises after it ruled on Monday that a law forbidding the registration of an offensive trademark is unconstitutional.The justices ruled 8-0 that a 71-year-old trademark law banning disparaging terms infringes on freedom of speech.
The group’s success even after the U.S. Patent and Trademark office said it couldn’t trademark their name because it is disparaging toward Asian Americans, may turn out to be a win for the NFL’s Washington Redskins.
The NFL organization doesn’t have a trademark on their name because of the same law that says you cannot obtain a trademark that is disparaging against a group of people.An attorney for the Redskins said the team was thrilled with the court’s decision. Team owner Dan Snyder echoed the sentiment in a statement to CSN, saying, “I am THRILLED! Hail to the Redskins.”
Whoever holds the trademark rights to the popular phrase “Another One Bites The Dust” should invoke it as it’s being applied on seemingly a weekly basis to remnants of the Obama years.
[Note: This article was written by Derrick Wilburn]