Chris Daniel won the primary in Mississippi for the Republican nomination for the United States Senate. However, he did not receive 50% + 1 of the vote as required by law. Therefore, a run-off election will occur on June 24. He needs his campaign funds to be rebuilt. Donate to the Chris McDaniel Senate primary campaign in Mississippi:
http://www.fourteenin2014.com/make-a-donation/donate-to-chris-mcdaniel/
Donate: https://mcdaniel2014.com/donate/
Donate: https://secure.senateconservatives.com/step1?
Website: https://mcdaniel2014.com/
—
New T.W. Shannon for Senate for Oklahoma ad:
Donate to the Senate Conservatives Fund for T.W. Shannon:
https://secure.senateconservatives.com/step1?
Website: http://www.twshannon.com/
Donate: http://www.twshannon.com/contribute/
—
www.amazon.com now has the exclusive right to sale my first e-book in its Kindle Store.
The title of the e-book is The Black Sword: The Secret U.S. Army in Vietnam
The direct link to the e-book:
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00KCWVHIK
—
Primaries in June:
06) Colorado Primary: June 24, 2014
20) Maryland Primary: June 24, 2014
32) New York Federal Office Primary: June 24, 2014 ~ State Office Primary: September 9, 2014
36) Oklahoma Primary: June 24, 2014 ~ Runoff: August 26, 2014
44) Utah Primary: June 24, 2014
24) Mississippi Primary Runoff: June 24, 2014
—
From: http://dailysignal.com/2014/06/18/u-s-patent-office-redskins-trademark-disparaging-native-americans/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell
“U.S. Patent Office: Redskins Trademark Is Disparaging to Native Americans
John G. Malcolm / @malcolm_john / Elizabeth Slattery / @EHSlattery
June 18, 2014
Today, the U.S. Patent and Trade Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, by a vote of 2 to 1, canceled the registration of six trademarks held by the Washington Redskins football team on the grounds that the word ‘Redskins’ is disparaging to Native Americans (Seriously? And obviously it was NOT disparaging to Native Americans when the trademarks were issued or they would not have been issued! Right? So what changed? How did that which was not disparaging become disparaging? Redskins has been the team’s nickname for years!—my addition).
There’s been increasing public scrutiny of the Washington Redskins’ name—with President Obama and many members of the Senate (Democrats!—my addition) calling for the team to change its name. (Why is it even any business of the federal government? It is NOT! This is about control, political correctness, and the accumulation and use of power!—my addition) The legal issue before the Trademark Board, however, was not whether the term ‘Redskins’ is viewed as disparaging by Native Americans today, but rather whether it was viewed as such by a ‘substantial composite’ of Native Americans at the time the six Redskins trademarks were issued, from 1967 to 1990 (And how would they know that? And why is that even a part of the law where one group gets to decide what is disparaging and what is not? Does no one recognize the importance of the “melting pot” that helped made the nation great! The Democrats turn everything into group politics to the extreme detriment of the nation!—my addition).
This is not the first time the Trademark Board has ruled against the Redskins.
In a case that begin in 1992, the board ordered the cancellation of the same trademark registrations, but a federal district court reversed that order finding that the board’s finding of ‘disparagement’ was ‘not supported by substantial evidence’ and the claims were barred by laches (a legal doctrine meaning the petitioners had waited too long to file their claim). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit agreed that the claim was time-barred, but did not opine on the district court’s ruling on the merits of the disparagement issue.
In 2006, a new group of five Native Americans filed a second petition to cancel the same trademark registrations and a majority of the Trademark Board ruled in the group’s favor. The majority concluded that the trademarks should be canceled because, in their view, the evidence supported the claim that the term ‘Redskins’ was disparaging to Native Americans and brought them into contempt or disrepute at the time the trademarks were issued (What utter nonsense! Then why wasn’t a claim filed at that time?—my addition). The majority also rejected the defense of laches because of the ‘broader public interest (What broader public interest?—my addition)’ that they believe exists.
As the dissenting board member pointed out, however, the petitioners engaged in what ‘can most charitably be characterized as a database dump’ resubmitting ‘most of the same evidence that the [original] petitioners submitted—evidence which the district court previously ruled was insufficient to support an order to cancel the challenged registrations as disparaging (Because they don’t have any other “evidence!” This is ALL political!—my addition).’ The dissenting board member further noted:
‘It is astounding that the petitioners did not submit any evidence regarding the Native American population during the relevant time frame, nor did they introduce any evidence or argument as to what comprises a substantial composite of that population thereby leaving it to the majority [of the Board] to make petitioners’ case have some semblance of meaning (Of course! That is the normal tactic of the Left! They do not have to bother with facts and evidence! They have emotion and feelings!—my addition).’
The evidence the board relied upon is anecdotal (Emotions and feelings!—my addition). None of the linguistics expert witnesses the board relied upon ‘specifically researched the Native American viewpoint of the word ‘redskin(s)’ as it related to the football team. Further, the board referenced dictionary entries from the 1960s and electronic databases from major newspapers and magazines for the 1970s-1980s to determine how the term was used and whether it was considered offensive. But again, neither the dictionaries nor the databases shows how Native Americans viewed the term during the relevant time frame.
This cancellation will almost certainly be appealed and, given the precedents, stands a good chance of being reversed again. And at least one noted legal scholar has pointed out potential First Amendment issues raised by this decision.
It’s important to note the consequences of this ruling. The board has no authority to stop the team from using its name. Yet this cancellation means that the team will be severely hindered in preventing others from selling merchandise or services that use the term ‘Washington Redskins (Not according to Mark Levin!—my addition),’ thereby depriving the business of a valuable property right. Team owner Dan Snyder has fervently defended the team’s name and has vowed “We’ll never change the name. It’s that simple. NEVER—you can use caps.” (I hope he is right! This is all political rubbish and nothing more!—my addition) However, since NFL teams pool their merchandising revenue and divide it equally, the other owners may bring some pressure to bear on Snyder to change the name should he lose on appeal.
At the risk of being labeled (gasp!) politically incorrect, it is clear that the political correctness crowd is on the war path. Other teams, such as the Cleveland Indians, Atlanta Braves, Kansas City Chiefs, and the ‘Fighting Irish’ of Notre Dame, may want to call their lawyers.”
Mark Levin discussed this on his show. He pointed out that Senator Cantwell of the State of Washington was pushing a name change. And yet, there are high schools in Washington whose nickname is, you guessed it, “Redskins!” maybe she should first work within her own State.
Second, and I read this elsewhere as well, even if the federal approval for the trademark is lost, the team STILL has ownership of the name through common law trademark. In short, others can’t use it because it is still the trademark of the team. It is just not registered with the federal government.
As an author, I researched copyrights. And in fact, I do not have to register my writings with the federal government. I still have a copyright on everything I write. Now, with it registered with the feds, I can more easily prove I have copyright ownership. But, I have copyright ownership as soon as I have a finished product. In the Redskin case, they can prove their ownership by the previous federal trademark. So don’t go violating the trademark. By common law, you lose!
Democrats are such losers!
—
Because gun control works for government, the government killed:
https://www.youtube.com/embed/0sujnvIV4g4
—
I have enjoyed baseball for as long as I can remember. Watching a pitcher work his magic, watching a hitter who is considered excellent when he fails 2/3rds of the time. Tony Gwynn has died. Here is a tribute to his craft.
Watch the first video:
http://espn.go.com/mlb/story/_/id/11091626/hall-famer-tony-gwynn-san-diego-padres-died
