Quote:
Originally Posted by Vendzilla
When did it become the responsibility of the patent office to pass moral judgments?
|
the process is.......interesting. I'm reading the dissenting opinion from one of the TM judges, as I understand it, the TM committee is tasked with evaluating this sort of thing with every TM application. The original approval process for the name in 1967 did do this and they approved it. The current TM court has received numerous complaints re: the name and reopened the evaluation. The important part is they are tasked with evaluating whether or not the term was derogatory in 1967- at the time of the original filing and after the original TM officials evaluated the name.
And from that dissenting opinion_
Quote:
Finally, the majority relies on a June 3, 1991 letter from Dale Pullen, publisher of The U.S. Congress Handbook to Charlie Drayton, the Vice President of Communications for the Washington Redskins.
266
In his letter, Mr. Pullen wrote the following: The National American Indian Council, representing 70 per cent of the American Indian population, would like 400 U.S. CONGRESS HANDBOOKS for their D.C. meeting beginning June 7. Ms. Lee Ann Tallbear, Executive Director, for the NAIC, called to see how she might get books . . . . Ms. Tallbear said that her group represents about 1.2 million American Indians who do not live on reservations. The National Congress of American Indians represent [sic] Indians living on reservations (the remaining 30 percent). This is the most persuasive evidence that supports the majority’s contention. Nevertheless, the letter is double hearsay (i.e., hearsay within hearsay).
|
http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/pag...rk-order/1105/