Recent U.S. Supreme Court Decision

[CashRules]

After an appeal by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the Supreme Court has upheld a lower federal court ruling which allows the founder of the rock group The Slants to trademark the band's name. The Patent Office had initially denied the trademark under the same ruling that caused the Washington Redskins to lose the trademark on their team name. The belief was that the name is a racial slur against people of Asian ancestry. What the Patent Office didn't seem to take into consideration is that all four members of The Slants are Asian Americans. I'm always ready to be proven wrong (really, I'd like it to happen just once) but my initial reaction is that the Supreme Court decision is correct. Had the band been formed by two white guys and two black guys with make-up that caused them to look like stereotypes of Asian people then the Patent Office may have had a valid point. However, since it is four Asian-Americans it seems this is similar to four black guys calling themselves NWA, which I'm sure everybody already knows what the acronym stands for. I also don't see that this is in anyway comparable to the Washington Redskins which is an asshole white billionaire refusing to give up a racial slur due to some lame-ass appeal to "tradition".

Thoughts?

[Gendo]

Hmm. One potential issue is that the ruling you now have to care about intent, and I don't know if that should matter. A rule that says "racial slurs cannot be trademarked" can be clear-cut and easy to apply (except possibly the discussion about if a certain word counts as a racial slur or not). But a rule that says "racial slurs cannot be trademarked except by members of the race whom the racial slur applies to" is harder to enforce. You get into a lot more grey areas... what if the band had been 3 Asians and 1 white guy? Or 4 guys who were all half Asian? Quarter Asian?

Certainly there's a huge moral difference between a white guy using that slur and a group of Asians using it. But I don't know how easily we can enforce that difference legally.

[CashRules]

My post may have been confusing. My reason for thinking the name is okay - it's four Asians, is not the same as the Supreme Court's reason. They simply struck down the law on First Amendment grounds, which unfortunately leaves the door open for appeal by the aforementioned asshole white billionaire.

I may start a band called The Rambling Baby Thieves. I'm going to trademark it just in case.

[Gendo]

Can we stop and appreciate that the leader of The Slants' is named Simon Tam? Just found out that interesting bit of info.

He doesn't look Asian to me.

[Gendo]

Holy crap, also just found out that the patent office told them that they could have trademarked the name if they weren't Asian, but because they're Asian, they can't.

So the patent office DID take into account the fact that they are all Asian.

[CashRules]

Can we stop and appreciate that the leader of The Slants' is named Simon Tam? Just found out that interesting bit of info.

He doesn't look Asian to me.

Neither did Kwai Chang Caine.

[Monk]

Holy crap, also just found out that the patent office told them that they could have trademarked the name if they weren't Asian, but because they're Asian, they can't.

So the patent office DID take into account the fact that they are all Asian.

I was going to mention this. It's literally because their Asian that they rejected the trademark. Strangely, at least according to some podcasts I've listened to on the subject (one was On the Media - I forget the other one), "slant" was never really consistently used as a slur. It certainly is a stereotype about Asians, but it's not something people would call them.

The Redskins thing gives me pause, and the thought that the trademark office is now probably going to be flooded with racist BS going forward, but it does seem to be a situation where the government shouldn't be dictating what is and is not appropriate.