“Redskins” Is Derogatory, US Trademark Office Says

CBS News, January 8, 2014

There will be no trademark for “Redskins Hog Rinds,” a bad omen for the Washington Redskins in the legal battle over their name.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected a request from a company to sell pork rinds using the word “Redskins” because it deemed the term to be “derogatory slang.”

In a letter dated Dec. 29, the agency wrote: “Registration is refused because the applied-for mark REDSKINS HOG RINDS consists of or includes matter which may disparage or bring into contempt or disrepute persons, institutions, beliefs, or national symbols.”

The same agency is deliberating whether to revoke the trademark protection for the NFL team, part of a long-running challenge from a group of Native Americans. A hearing was held in March, and a decision is expected soon.


Topics: , ,

Share This

We welcome comments that add information or perspective, and we encourage polite debate. If you log in with a social media account, your comment should appear immediately. If you prefer to remain anonymous, you may comment as a guest, using a name and an e-mail address of convenience. Your comment will be moderated.
  • Puggg

    Yet, “Seminoles” just won the championship in college football; nobody is complaining about that name.

    • So CAL Snowman

      But they are complaining that a White woman dared to notice that an illiterate, black male (the face of the Seminole team) could not properly speak English in a post game interview. Seriously this country is beyond insane. We need a new word to describe the madness of these modern times.

      • Puggg

        He don’ be speekin’ good.

        But he probably does know how to say “not guilty.”

        • AutomaticSlim

          Looks a little like a young Todd Bridges.
          He didn’t fare too well with obeying the law either.

      • AutomaticSlim

        “the face of the Seminole team”

        You mean the rapist?

    • danallison

      Winning is everything in sports. If the Redskins won 3 of the last 4 Super Bowls, the psychotic control freaks would find a more vulnerable target.

  • WR_the_realist

    Remember, this is the same office that rejected a trademark for “White Pride”, finding it offensive, while it allowed registering trademarks on:

    “African Pride,” “African Man Pride,” “Asian Pride,” “Bahama Pride,”
    “Black Pride,” “Brazilian Pride,” “China-Pride,” “Chippewa Pride,”
    “Choctaw Pride,” “Colombian Pride,” “Cuban Pride,” “Dakota Pride,”
    “Dominican Pride,” “El Salvador Pride,” “Ecuador Pride,” “Gay Pride
    Apparel,” “Guyanese Pride,” “Havana Pride,” “Honduran Pride,” “Indian
    Pride,” “Jamaica’s Pride,” “Jewish Pride,” “Kwanzaa Pride,” “Long Beach
    Lesbian and Gay Pride,” “Mayan Pride,” “Mexican Pride,” “Native Pride!,”
    “Nicaraguan Pride,” “Orgullo Hispano” (Hispanic Pride), “Orgoglio”
    (Hispanic–”Great Pride” (supremacy?)), “Qisqueya Pride” (Dominican
    Republic Pride), “Rainbow Pride Coach,” “Red Pride,” “San Diego Lesbian,
    Gay, Bisexual, Transgender Pride,” “Spanish Pride,” and “West Indian

    • bigone4u

      Your list is incredible.

      • WR_the_realist

        That was taken from an earlier Amren article, from 2010.

    • Spartacus

      Pride is the last thing any of those critters should have. The best of their kinds are the ones that kill themselves.

    • MekongDelta69

      How about, I’ve always had enough self-confidence in myself that I don’t need to wrap myself up in some ‘self-esteem-faux-boosting’ “Pride” blanket.

      It’s like when you see some loud mouth on TV, with that typical, angry, arrogant, in-your-face look, saying, “I’m a proud black lesbian woman. Yes I am.”

      Yeah lady. We can see you’re black. We can see you’re a woman (I guess). We see that you’re so insecure, that you have to scream the word ‘proud’. And we don’t want to see what perversions you do in the bedroom. Now STFU and GTFO.

    • NeanderthalDNA

      El gobierno is going to fix this here problem…
      To Hell with free speech. Big Brudda be a watchin’, evil Whitey.

  • Hunter Morrow

    Call them the Washington Crooks and make their logo be a caricature of whoever the current president is. You can sell new jersies multiple times a decade.

  • Tarczan

    Since many of the Redskin fans are the very bureaucrats that seek to impose this ruling, I think getting rid of the name is a great idea.

  • NoMosqueHere

    Get used to it. As Amerika continues its descent into third worldism, the PC vice will eventually squeeze the very life out of our heritage. Only whites will be fair game for ridicule or derision. Our progeny will be a despised minority and they will spit on our graves for letting it happen.

  • bigone4u

    To more accurately describe the team, it should be called the Blackskins and its mascot should be a spear-chucker. Truth in advertising is not a bad thing.

  • Eagle_Eyed

    What about “Red Man chew?”

  • Pelagian

    The US Trademark Office is disproportionately loaded with African Americans. And to a lesser extent, so is the Patent Office. The USPTO just opened their first satellite office outside of DC, since the founding of the Office. You know what city they chose? That tech mecca, Detroit!

    The most-loaded with AA’s however is the (much less complicated) Copyright Office. For a laugh sometime, you should call and listen to the “professional voice” they have for the Copyright Office main help line. (Hint: “All lions are busy”). 1-877-476-0778 (toll free)

  • Tim_in_Indiana

    The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has rejected a request from a company to sell pork rinds using the word “Redskins” because it deemed the term to be “derogatory slang.”

    Another clear attack on freedom of speech. Whether the office considers anything to be “derogatory slang” in granting a trademark is irrelevant, especially since the rules in determining such are arbitrary and unevenly applied. Our rights are steadily being chipped away at, folks, and most white Americans are totally oblivious to it.

    • willbest

      Its not an attack on free speech. They can still call themselves the Redskins. They just can’t stop anybody from selling Redskins merchandise. Plenty of people don’t even think trademarks, patents, and copyrights should be a thing

  • dd121

    Just what in the Constitution gives the government authority to re-name your business or sports team?

    • willbest

      A trademark is a legal protection granted by the government that gives you the exclusive right. It is a legal construct. So if the trademark office kills the trademark, then anybody could sell redskin apparel (albeit without the Nike and NFL logos) and the Redskins couldn’t stop them.

  • Extropico

    To be forthright, I have never really been comfortable with the team name of “Redskins.” It does seem derogatory to me. I have White pride but would never refer to myself as a Whiteskin. It evokes criminal acts of mayhem and flaying to me.

  • ssviking

    Prairie nogs

  • willbest

    I oppose this because
    1) People have a right to be a-holes
    2) They will come after the Blackhawks next.

  • LACounty

    I remembers years ago when the NBA’s Washington Bullets changed their nick due to all the shootings in the area.
    As if the nick influences crime in the area. Which in Bantu-land it very well might.

  • BillMillerTime

    If Notre Dame can have “the Fighting Irish,” surely Washington can have “the Fighting Whities.” Come to think of it, why does no one get upset by the term “Fighting Irish”? Doesn’t that perpetuate ugly stereotypes and reinforce “stereotype threat’? How would people react if the team from Brandeis was called “the Bargaining Jews”?

    • texasoysterman


  • Is calling the staff of the US Trademark Office a pack of self-righteous, self-impressed nit-wits derogatory? I am only sorry I can not go very far with the “derogatory” stuff here, lest I be moderated.