My father-daughter time was wonderful in London when the news hit about the USPTO ordering cancellation of the six “Washington Redskins” trademarks as disparaging to Native Americans.
Thanks for your patience in waiting for my perspective on the subject — you know I’m thrilled if you know me well, if you know of my involvement in the first successful challenge, or if you’ve read any of my writing here on the topic:
- “Re-Branding Madness in Washington” Overlooks Obvious: The Washington Redskins
- Supreme Court Declines to Hear Redskins Trademark Case
- Trending Now: Washington Redskins Name Change?
- The R-Word, Postponing the Inevitable
Because so much has been written already on the decision over the past two days, instead of me summarizing or explaining the decision here in detail, I’d suggest you take a look at John Welch’s or Susan Neuberger Weller’s solid coverage of the decision.
What I will say quite happily is that the decision is tight, focused, well-reasoned, and built to withstand the team’s promised appeal.
What I can’t explain is why the team continues to deny what has become so obvious to so many people: The R-Word must go.
Let’s start the countdown now, and don’t forget my prediction from November 2009:
“Some day, I don’t know when, justice will prevail, and some talented branding guru will make a tidy sum re-naming and re-branding this offensive NFL franchise name that could have and should have been re-named long ago.”
So, justice has prevailed (again), and now we’re hopefully getting closer to the second part of my prediction, the re-naming part . . . .
There has been quite a bit of interest in how this trademark dispute started. If you’re interested in the origin of this trademark challege and how it was inspired, here is a New York Times piece from last Fall, and even more recently, here is a piece from the Wall Street Journal:
Next target? How about the registered trademark comprising the visual equivalent of the R-Word?