After losing on Appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington a couple of weeks back, the native Americans who feel that the Washington Redskins trademark is racist and offensive have appealed to the Supreme Court, see Supreme Court Asked to Weigh Redskins Case
The Appeal was refused by the Court of Appeals in Washington because of the Statute of Limitations, and so the court has side-stepped the issue of whether offensive trademarks should be allowed. the appeal is based on the claim that trademark issues never reach closure since circumstances change.
As fair as likelihood of confusion is concerned, I accept that trademark issues should remain open. As far as other grounds such as racism and offensiveness, I am not so sure, not least because there is little that someone, somewhere doesn’t find offensive.
As an ex-pat British Israeli, I don’t have the cultural background to relate to the feelings of American Indians but imagine that they may feel very strongly about the mark. Is it patronising and offensive? Perhaps, but the redskin shown is perhaps more dignified than the Robinsons’ golliwog.
Should offensiveness force a football team to change their name? not sure. Arsenal FC has a cannon logo, also for historical reasons. Possibly pacifists find this offensive. The UK Cricket team, Middlesex represents a county that no longer exists. It is perhaps offensive to those of indeterminate sexuality and/or sexual persuasion.
In 2001, Robinsons’ Jams and Marmalades gave up their gollywog logo. Maybe Israel’s peanut snack bald baby with ginger curl of hair (Bamba) is offensive to auburn and bald babies?
What if the football team were in Germany and were called the “Final Solutions”? The term “red skin” is a slang historical reference to the now extinct (via genocide, by the way) Beothuk’s of what is now called Newfoundland in Canada.