03 Oct 16
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html
The Redskins NFL lost their appeal to SCOTUS on keeping their name.
So now any terms the 9 justices deem as "offensive" is now illegal.
So what other words should they ban?
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by whodeyCorrecting your stupidity is a full time job.
https://www.yahoo.com/sports/news/supreme-court-rejects-trademark-appeal-from-washington-redskins-150634854.html
The Redskins NFL lost their appeal to SCOTUS on keeping their name.
So now any terms the 9 justices deem as "offensive" is now illegal.
So what other words should they ban?
Read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-declines-hear-redskins-copyright-appeal-135346178--nfl.html
The case has nothing to do with making words "illegal" but whether the government should grant trademark protection to terms deemed offensive. Not only that, but it appears the decision was purely procedural; the Washington NFL franchise wanted the SCOTUS to step in even before the lower court ruled on their appeal of a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (the agency empowered by statute to make trademark decisions in the first instance) - something the SCOTUS almost never does.
Originally posted by no1marauderBut the trademark is a word and it has been deemed illegal.
Correcting your stupidity is a full time job.
Read this article: http://sports.yahoo.com/news/u-supreme-court-declines-hear-redskins-copyright-appeal-135346178--nfl.html
The case has nothing to do with making words "illegal" but whether the government should grant trademark protection to terms deemed offensive. Not only that, but it appears the dec ...[text shortened]... ute to make trademark decisions in the first instance) - something the SCOTUS almost never does.
To run to this left winged court is insane. I know how they will rule before ever being asked.
Originally posted by whodeyI know this might be too deep for you to fathom Whodey, but debating this legal topic with a legal expert is a lot like debating the finer points of brain surgery with a brain surgeon. You're out of your league here. Please show an ounce of common sense, and drop the subject.😴
The restriction of the usage of a word in the business world is the topic at hand
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by mchillI could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.
I know this might be too deep for you to fathom Whodey, but debating this legal topic with a legal expert is a lot like debating the finer points of brain surgery with a brain surgeon. You're out of your league here. Please show an ounce of common sense, and drop the subject.
So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by whodeyActually denying a private party a trademark is the opposite of " restriction of the usage of a word in the business world". The Washington NFL team would still be able to use the term if it so chooses; it just couldn't successfully use legal remedies against other entities or persons for doing the same.
The restriction of the usage of a word in the business world is the topic at hand
Originally posted by whodeyLMAO!
I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.
So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
Pathetic. A reasonable translation of that post is:
"I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by no1marauderSo in other words, SCOTUS has denied the Redskins the ability to protect their name in order to make money off of it, even though they are still free to use it.
Actually denying a private party a trademark is the opposite of " restriction of the usage of a word in the business world". The Washington NFL team would still be able to use the term if it so chooses; it just couldn't successfully use legal remedies against other entities or persons for doing the same.
I guess SCOTUS is able to give the thumbs up or down for businesses that they find offensive or not.
Sounds Constitutional to me.
Originally posted by whodeyFab 9? So, there's dead people on the SCOTUS? KInda like the the US voters now eh?
I could care less about the legal aspects of this case other than the word "Redskins" is being censored in the business realm.
So according to the fab 9, anything they deem offensive will be censored.
03 Oct 16
Originally posted by whodeyWhen you're in a hole, stop digging.
So in other words, SCOTUS has denied the Redskins the ability to protect their name in order to make money off of it, even though they are still free to use it.
I guess SCOTUS is able to give the thumbs up or down for businesses that they find offensive or not.
Sounds Constitutional to me.
Businesses are asking the government to restrict other people's speech when they desire the legal protection of trademarks. Congress has allowed this under its regulatory power over commerce, but set certain restrictions on what can be used as a trademark. The dispute is over the finding of a board established by Congress to rule on trademark applications and renewals pursuant to the duly enacted statutes.
I hate to keep explaining something to someone who utterly refuses to listen, but the SCOTUS hasn't even made a decision on the merits; it has merely said that the lower courts must rule first as per established procedure. So your hysteria is doubly wrong and particularly stupid.
03 Oct 16
2 edits
Originally posted by no1marauder"I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".
LMAO!
Pathetic. A reasonable translation of that post is:
"I don't know what I am talking about and I don't WANT to know what I am talking about if it interferes with the propaganda value of my nonsensical statements".
Now THAT's funny! 😀😀😀
This is better than Jerry Seinfeld!