Originally Posted by dsc123
Are you referring to the granting of federal trademark protection (I.e. prohibiting private entities from using the phrase) or cancelling it (I.e. letting anyone use the phrase)?
We just fought off a knockoff company and shut down their booth at a trade show, because we filed a patent and they infringed upon it. The PTO works for a party who is entitled to protection under the patent and trademark system, but in this case, they deemed a trademark unsuitable for protection under "Section 2(a), 15 U.S.C. § 1052(a), which prohibits registration of marks that may disparage persons or bring them into contempt or disrepute." As noted in the link posted by you @dsc123.
It seems like this whole thing started with the SuperBowl victory in 1988.
"National protests began in 1988, after the team's Super Bowl XXII victory. Numerous Native Americans wrote letters to Redskins owner Jack Kent Cooke encouraging him to change the name. Others boycotted Redskins products and protested. Many of these events were led by Suzan Shown Harjo of the National Congress of American Indians (NCAI). Cooke responded in an interview, stating, "There's not a single, solitary jot, tittle, whit chance in the world that the Redskins will adopt a new nickname."
This sounds familiar, right?
I feel like the root of the problem is that there is a serious rift in cultural points of view. I feel bad for all parties involved, except the owner who stands to make lots of money either way.