WATCH: Washington Redskins attorney talks to Glenn about latest ruling

On Wednesday, The United States Patent Office ruled the Washington Redskins federal trademarks for its name must be canceled because the moniker is “disparaging of Native Americans.”

According to TheBlaze, the 2-1 ruling means that the team can continue to use the Redskins name, but it would lose most of its ability to protect the financial interests connected to its use. For example, if others printed the name on apparel or other team material, it would be more difficult for the team to go after those groups.

On radio Wednesday, Glenn reacted to the ruling by questioning whether we are actually living in the United States of America anymore. And on radio this morning, Bob Raskopf, trademark attorney for the Redskins, called in to discuss what comes next.

Get Glenn Live! On TheBlaze TV

The debate over the political correctness of the Redskins name has been raging for quite some time, and team owner Daniel Snyder has, thus far, refused to cave to the pressure. In the aftermath of the Patent Office’s ruling, Redskins president Bruce Allen reportedly said, “We’ll be fine.”

Throughout his conversation with Glenn, Raskopf maintained a similar tone as he explained the finer details of the decision.

“First of all, [the trademark] hasn’t been thrown away. I think everybody needs to know we still own this. It is not canceled,” Raskopf said defiantly. “Just like last time, it was an 11-year period between the time the trademark board issued their adverse rule and the time we ultimately prevailed. I don’t think it will take that long this time, but these are valid, subsisting, and fully enforceable marks, registrations. Nothing has changed.

“They can’t be canceled and will not be canceled while this proceeding continues,” he continued. “So I hope the Redskins fans aren’t worrying about whether the marks are still registered because they clearly are and will continue to be.”

One of the reasons Redskins brass has refused to contemplate a name change is because of the history the moniker holds. Glenn asked Raskopf to explain the tradition.

“[The franchise] was using Boston Braves, but that conflicted with the Boston Braves baseball team, so the name got changed to another laudatory term for Native Americans. That was the story. Then we built on that for years and years ago and years. We built brand recognition, and we turned it into one of the most valuable names in all of sports. Washington Redskins, by any measure is one of the most valuable trademarks in all of sports,” Raskopf said. “So we have done a lot with it in a positive way… Just look at the record in this case, look at what the witnesses have said, and you will find your record that’s completely at odds with what is being advertised.”

While Raskopf appreciates the groundswell of grassroots support the Redskins have received in the face of this controversy, he believes the franchise will prevail regardless because the evidence is simply not there.

“We have unbelievable support, but we keep the support close to us. It’s hard to be critical, I think, of the decision at this time in history… so I don’t want to put anybody in a difficult position. We have a lot of support at the grassroots level, in my mind,” he explained. “And not only do we have it in my mind, but where is the support in the record in this case that they have the burden of proof of coming up with? It’s not there.”

When you consider the names of other sports teams – the Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, Atlanta Braves, Golden State Warriors, Florida Seminoles, etc. – Glenn wondered what impact this ruling will have on future cased.

“You brought up the Braves,” Glenn said. “Would this affect the Braves and the Indians and everything else?”

“No, it would have no effect. Each of these stands on its own,” Raskopf responded. “Every record stands on its own, so I don’t even want to think about anyone having to trouble based on whatever might happen here. There’s no overlap.”

Ultimately, for any Redskins fan or freedom loving American concerned about whether the team might succumb to pressure, Raskopf offered a bit of reassurance.

“Is there any point that the club just says it’s just not worth it anymore,” Glenn asked.

“I don’t think that’s ever going to happen. That’s not going to happen. This is a valuable brand,” Raskopf concluded. “ We are going to get through this… and we’ll be right where we are now, which is: We own a famous mark, it is valid, and it is valuable.”

  • Glennfriend67

    Dan Snyder is a tough guy and has been a Redskins fan his whole life.He loves the team, and its rich history. He even created the Washington Redskins Foundation, which goes out to the reservations and is helping to rebuild the houses, make sure they have proper plumbing, adequate heating and so much more. Dan Snyder and the Washington Redskins and the Redskins fans have done more fore the Native Americans in less than a year than the Feds have done for them in centuries! Say what you will, Washington fans are the most loyal fans in the NFL, and we are not going to take this lying down! We love our team, and we will NOT tolerate government goons like Harry “Psycho” Reid and Barak “Islamist” Obama to interfere. Hey, Barry and Harry, maybe if you actually did a little research into the history of the team, you’d find out they were named the Washington Redskins in honor of their first coach, who was himself a NATIVE AMERICAN. He was honored by the new team name, as were all the Native Americans that played for them, which comprised the majority of the team. With the exception of the Obama boot-licking Oneida tribe, ALL the Native Americans are proud of the team name! Harry Reid should be admitted to a mental hospital, and Barry? He needs to be tossed out of DC on his ear!

  • Anonymous

    This just a beginning of… wait for it… The War On Sports!

    American produced sports are violent, racist and evil. So says… “everyone” (except for the brain dead right-wing nut jobs who played American Football).

    Major League Soccer, er, Football, loved by the entire planet (except for the mean-ol’ male adults of the USA) gets a pass for such violent, disrespective and offensive names such as “Revolution” (New England), “Fire” (Chicago), “Chivas” (Chiva is slang for heroin), “Union” (Philadelphia — watch out you scabs) and the entire “sport” revolves around the constant kicking of something.

    Submitted to the people. ;-)

  • Anonymous

    And this ‘political correctness’ is only getting worse. The insecure liberal left has to have something to ‘cry’ about since their own worlds are in so much turmoil.

  • Anonymous

    Keep with rabble busy fighting the hating, racist conservatives while undermining the entire economy and society.

  • Kapok

    Who sits on the board that ruled 2-1 to cancel the trademark? Are these people political appointees? Can they be voted off the board at the US Patent office?

  • Harlin S. Neal

    If the Redskins’ trademark ruling stands, it could at least provide psychological momentum for people to go after teams like the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, Kansas City Chiefs, Chicago Blackhawks, and other Native-American mascot names. It’s different in going after pro teams vs. high school or college. In high school and/or college, the governing body of that school, such as the state’s high school athletic association or the NCAA for college, can impose sanctions against a school if such a place doesn’t change a nickname for reasons like this. The University of Illinois’ “Fighting Illini” story proves such a point. The NCAA threatened financial sanctions against the school, including not allowing the school to host post-season athletic tournaments years ago if it did not get rid of the “Chief Illiniwek” mascot and likeness. There used to be a guy who would dance a Native-American dance at halftime during football and basketball games…that dancer would be taught by a descendant of the Illini tribal group in order to make sure the dance was as authentic and true to the original version as possible by the way. But…with all the controversy surrounding Chief Illiniwek…the NCAA wasn’t hearing it. It made the threats, and the school gave in. Funny thing is…the school’s athletic teams are still called the “Fighting Illini”, but the logo has been replaced with a silhouette of the state of Illinois and/or a giant capital letter “I”.

    I’ve said this many times before, and I’ll say it again…I’ll agree with the notion the team should change it’s name…if that same intensity applies to teams like the “Fighting Irish”, “Spartans”, “Vikings”, “Saints”, “Patriots”, and other team names that either are or could be perceived as “offensive” and/or “racist”.

  • Anonymous

    I think the Redskins should fight the good fight and stand strong. Anyone who has a problem with the name of their mascot should start using the moniker “THIN-SKINNED.” And I say, with all fervor, Washington’s football team IS the Redskins. Your argument is invalid.

  • Scott Golladay

    If you look up the definition of oklahoma it is choctaw and means “red people”. Are we prepared to change the name of one of our states as well because someone finds that offensive? I find allot of things offensive but I simply choose not to cater to their business. This is supposed to be America, not the soviet union.

  • Christian Jackson

    Once they’re done with sports teams, do they go after other iconic, yet wholly racist, companies like:

  • Anonymous

    What a nothing story.The Dems keep it pumped up to try to keep the Americans attention from the Presidents horrible policies.

  • ‘Rick Lepard

    Washington Dictators

  • Anonymous

    In fifty years the liberals will complain how Native Americans were scrubbed from the nation’s culture by conservatives.

  • Anonymous

    Keep the Washington Redskins!!!! Do NOT be bullied by these progressive democrats, liberals, republicans etc. I have been a Washington Redskins fan for over 30 years and it is a team I love to cheer for.

  • Anonymous

    I’ll tell you the solution. Move the F out of DC. F these asshats.

  • Anonymous

    The Washington Redskins should keep the trademark name and stuff but I have one question. This morning on another station it got learned that the word “Redskin” to describe native American’s is like the N word used to describe black people. Since the football team is named that why is it offensive in one part of life but not in another part of life? That’s weird.

  • Anonymous

    It’s the George Carlin routine where he talks about the differences between baseball and football. I personally don’t care for American football but baseball is the American pastime for a reason and it’s doubtful the government will touch it. The leagues are doing just fine at policing themselves.

  • Sandra

    Be careful what you wish for, you may get it.

  • Anonymous

    Washington STATE Redskins… not Washington DC Redskins. Completely different coasts.

    (See MY reply below. Oops).

    Ok, so my reply never hit.

    Wondered why my apps were all closed on my tablet. Coworkers and their games, didn’t realize they’d even posted for me until I received the message notification about a reply to ‘my reply’.

  • Anonymous

    Oklahoma means “red people” so….

  • Anonymous

    is “pale face” offensive? not to me. How ’bout “red neck” – liberals use that one all the time.

  • lil’ will

    you’re hooker. I find THAT offensve!

  • landofaahs

    Redskin peanuts will be next. It shows how goofy societies go just before their collapse.

  • Guest

    NEXT TO BE PICKED ON…

  • Guest

    REALLY

  • framingham47

    Mr. Snyder, why not change the name to The Washington Tea Party and see what Dirty Harry has to say about that?

  • Anonymous

    Huh? The Washington Redskins are in DC.

  • landofaahs

    They deleted my post so I will repost it. Why don’t we just change the name to “The DC foreskins: and make Obama the mascot and be done with it? There I feel much better. So much for speaking your mind on Becks sites.

  • Texas Liberal

    You dimwits are deluding yourselves if you equate the term “Redskins” with “Indians,” “Braves,” “Chiefs,” etc. Personally, as a die hard lover of the beautiful silver and blue, I am enjoying every second of this debate watching Redskins fans slowly suffer with the growing understanding that eventually your offensive, racist team name is headed for oblivion. “Redskins” will ultimately be nothing more than an embarrassing footnote to institutional bigotry and your grandchildren will wonder how all of you could have been so ignorantly insensitive. I kind of like the new team name, “Washington White Imbeciles.” What do you think? LMAO! P.S. How ’bout them Cowboys, YEE-HAW!!

  • Texas Liberal

    You dimwits are deluding yourselves if you equate the term “Redskins” with “Indians,” “Braves,” “Chiefs,” etc. Personally, as a die hard lover of the beautiful silver and blue, I am enjoying every second of this debate watching Redskins fans slowly suffer with the growing understanding that eventually your offensive, racist team name is headed for oblivion. “Redskins” will ultimately be nothing more than an embarrassing footnote to institutional bigotry and your grandchildren will wonder how all of you could have been so ignorantly insensitive. I kind of like the new team name, “Washington White Imbeciles.” What do you think? LMAO! P.S. How ’bout them Cowboys, YEE-HAW!!

  • pogo46

    this attorney needs to know that the “earliest use” of the term “redskin”recorded was by an Indian Chief writing to the White leaders in Washington about a treaty with his people. If this is the term HE used for his people I say “case closed”.

  • pogo46

    earliest recorded use of the term “redskin” was by an Indian Chief writing about his people and their treaty with the white fathers in Washington. It is what HE called his own people…a little research might go a long way…unless this old Indian Chief was a secret racist way back in the olden days…..lol…..way before lunatic PC…..this proud leader was an insensitive bigot in your ludicrous world that doesn’t know any history and can’t bother to learn.

  • Raymond Michael Borland

    The Cherokee people got shoved off land they farmed and owned in Georgia and the Carolinas when gold was discovered there. President Andrew Jackson did this despicable act and in the Long March Federal troops marched the Cherokee to reservations in the west in winter and half the Indians died of starvation during the march. Andrew Jackson should have been tried for genocide. Instead Jackson adorns our $20.00 bill. This banning of the name Red Skins is just stupid in comparison to real horrible things done to the Indians by the US government. The team name was not derogatory but laudatory, by the way, just like the name the Braves is laudatory.
    There were strings of broken treaties. Even today the Indians are suppose to rule their own nations but the federal government controls them and has made them welfare states. awash in alcoholism. Only where the Indian have adopted individual property rights have they become wealthy. Communal ownership by the tribe has failed just like communism has always failed. There is too much incentive to sit back and let someone else do the work while you take his wealth in a handout.

  • Texas Liberal

    What self-serving nonsense! No one, and I mean no one was quoting from your (conveniently anonymous) “Indian Chief” when they first used the derogatory term, “Redskins.” I have an idea, why don’t you go knock randomly on some doors in a poor, african-american neighborhood and refer to them as “Blackskins” and see what kind of reaction you receive? I’m sure they’ll be flattered when you try to explain it is a term of honor and respect. You sound like one of those Tea Partiers that routinely have to precede their bigoted comments with “I’m not a racist, but…” “Redskins” is an offensive term, plain and simple. Watching you buffoons stumble all over yourselves trying to rationalize the term is shameful and an embarrassment in the 21st century. Of course, this is the Glenn Beck web site.

  • Greg Pearson

    How would Congress like it to be named after them? Washington Criminals

  • Matt Simmons
  • Glennfriend67

    I think she means move them out of DC to the state, but that wouldn’t be any better. Washington State’s just as crazy progressive as the Capitol.

  • Glennfriend67

    I am nearing 47 and I’ve been a fan since I was 5. I watched them go to their very first Super Bowl against Miami, sitting on my daddy’s lap. Sonny Jurgenson! Dan Snyder started out just like you and me; he was a big fan. No matter how good or bad they do, we stick with them through thick and thin. Redskins fans are the most loyal fans in the NFL. Dan will never allow these creeps to get away with this. They tried it before, under Clinton, and lost; they will lose again. Don’t you find it interesting that this only happens when there’s a Demoncrat “in charge?”

  • pogo46

    you are sadly ignorant and uninformed….go to the Smithsonian Institute and do a little history research…..of course you won’t because that would actually take “time” and “effort” and “thought”…you have already made up your bigoted, prejudiced closed mind

  • Dopple Gang

    Those of the liberty school recognize that centralized power should be limited due to the limits of human reason and the ignorance each of us harbors regarding most things.

  • Anonymous
  • Anonymous

    If Glenn doesn’t find the term offensive how would he feel if the University of Utah called their teams the Magical Underwears?

  • Texas Liberal

    Pogo, your contortions trying to justify the name “Redskins” are laughable. You suggest I need to read and research more? LMAO! How about you and others simply research George P. Marshall, the team’s original owner and the one responsible for the “Redskins” team name? Abundant evidence of him being an unapologetic racist as reported in this article linked below. Sorry for the inconvenient truth. Game. Set. Match. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2013/06/01/the-racist-redskins.html

  • Anonymous

    All of this is irrelevant. A patent is a legal property right. The Fifth Amendment says no one shall “. . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; . . . .” If Al Quaeda thugs are entitled to their Fifth Amendment rights, should not American citizens be likewise entitled?