1946 Lanham Trademark Act Case Study

Sullivan for the production of his T-shirts with the words Boston Marathon. Mr. Sullivan believes that he has the right to sell his t-shirts because he was not trying to mislead the consumers; nor was he promoting that his T-shirts were being sponsored by the BAA. According to the Lanham Act, which is a federal law that grants a producer the exclusive right to register a trademark and prevents competitors from using that mark; (Twomey & Jennings pg. 202) Surnames and geographic terms are not registrable on the Principal Register. I would like to use as an example the case that was addressed in Twomey & Jennings pg. 203 where Boston Beer was denied trademark protection because it was a geographic term.

For example, Pitts refers to the school board’s decision as an act of “intellectual vandalism.” Obviously, the word “vandalism” has an extremely negative connotation, and Pitts’ decision to describe the ruling this way causes the audience to view it as a true crime against students. Undoubtedly, much of Pitts’ audience is composed of parents, so the use of the word “vandalism” also garners many feelings of anger, as the majority of parents would be truly outraged if an act of vandalism such as this were committed against their own child. Even the title of the article describes the ruling as an “assault” on all students’ basic right to learn their nation’s history. Additionally, Pitts calls the ruling “stagnant, barren and antithetical to progress.”

Rule: The Court held 5-4 that no the First Amendment does not prevent educators from suppressing, at or across the street from a school-supervised event, student speech that is reasonably viewed as promoting

First Amendment rights are guaranteed to all American citizens, but current free speech issues are testing Constitutional boundaries. Where must the line be drawn between free speech and infringement upon others’ rights? Is there some speech so cruel and so appalling that it does not merit protection? These issues have been raised by the recent activities of the Westboro Baptist Church. Based out of Topeka, Kansas[1], this small group of radicals is marked by their hateful views and their contempt for homosexuality. The Westboro Baptist Church has gained notoriety and sparked national outrage with their offensive acts, particularly by protesting the funerals of fallen soldiers.

Snyder’s refusal of a name change perpetuates the idea of a white man’s history and traditions being more valid than those of a Native American’s. In a recent poll, 79% of NFL fans said that they do not think the Redskins should change their name (“NFL Fan Poll”), despite the fact that 67% of Native Americans find the term “redskin” offensive (“Survey on Redskins Team Name”). This is problematic because it shows that while more than half on Native Americans find the term redskin offensive, the majority of NFL fans say they think the

Alyna Woodley K. Huttinger Block 2 1 March 2023 Offensive Mascots Should we allow mascots that are extremely offensive to specific cultures even though some people feel they should be honored? Culturally offensive mascots should not be allowed because it teaches people and children that it's okay to make inaccurate assumptions about a group of people they don’t even know. Culturally offensive mascots can show disrespect to different races and cultures, and can cause people to create stereotypes. However people think of the derogatory mascots as a way to honor the cultures and show pride for the people.

Goodbye to Racial Mascots: California Bans the Use of “Redskins” in Public Schools Oct. 11 marks the victory of a statewide movement to prevent a racial slur from public use. On that day, California Governor Jerry Brown signed into law the ban on using “Redskins” as team names or mascots in public schools. The bill was well received by the majority, and many expected that this would set a good example for other states and the next generation. Without a doubt, the term in question — referring to the brutal crimes that British colonizers had done to Native Americans — is a racial slur that many Native Americans have long found offensive. However, when it comes to something as prestigious as the Washington football team or as intimate as a tradition of Amherst College.

Ellie Reynolds advances a rhetorically effective argument on why government should not have regulatory control over offensive Native American mascots in schools across the country. She believes this control is more of a detriment to society than a service. Her article published on the DenverPost.com, “Native Americans Have Become a Political Pawn,” offers a compelling point of view on this controversial issue because Reynolds is a member of the Oglala Sioux tribe herself (Reynolds 659). Along with her strong view against government involvement on this issue, which she considers censorship by political correctness, Reynolds uses her personal experience, historical context, and the negative effects of political correctness to convey her effective

The bans, which were enacted in several states, are necessary steps toward creating a more inclusive and respectful environment for Native American students, people, and communities. A main argument that is in favor of the bans is that they are responding to the concerns of Native American leaders who have long argued that the use of specific mascots is offensive and disrespectful. These leaders argue that the use of Native American mascots perpetuates harmful stereotypes and adds to the erasing of Native American culture. By banning the mascots, states are sending a message that they value and respect the voices and cultures of the Native American communities.

Armband protesters suspended from school Everyone is aware of the first amendment which states that citizens should have free speech. In the Tinker v. Des Moines case, the right was violated. What actually happened in the Tinker v. Des Moines case? There were a brother and sister named John and Mary Beth Tinker who went to a Des Moines school. The Tinkers went to school one day wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam war.

Recently, the use of controversial words has become a heavily debated topic and has gained international attention as seemingly truthful statements to some, cause insult to others. The Times article "Why 'Redskins' Is a Bad Word", by acclaimed linguist and professor John McWhortor, was published around the time the use of the word Redskin was being debated. In the article, McWhortor aims to clarify the condemnation of the word Redskin, by suggesting that the offence does not stem from the literal definition of such words, but instead the negative and often derogatory connotations the words have. McWhorter begins by introducing the recent discussions surrounding the use of the word Redskins, especially the actions taken by Californian schools

In which Fraser gave an inappropriate speech which contained perverted and inferred sexual words in his speech to try an get one of his friends into office, but got suspended and was no longer allowed to speak at graduation. According to document E it says “Bethel school district acted within its permissible authority in imposing sanctions on Fraser after his inappropriate speech”. This quote shows students are limited to what they can say and can't really speak their minds without restrictions therefore this shows that this case restricts the 1st amendment rights of students even though the U.S promotes freedom of speech but nevertheless there are others way to speak without using indecent words and also it was within a place of learning. The court was right to decide in favor of the school because “A high school assembly or classroom is no place for a sexuality explict monologue.(Doc. E)”it was well within parameters of the school to punish him for using obscene and indecent speech at a school event as mentioned in document E earlier “The first Amendment does not prevent the schools officials from determining them to permit a vulgar and lewd speech such as the respondent's would undermine the school’s basic educational

Over the past few years, the controversy over sports names or mascots has increasingly become an uproar. The main sports teams being targeted due to controversial mascots are programs having names that deal with Native Americans. Well known programs, such as, the Atlanta Braves, Cleveland Indians, and the Washington Redskins are just a few of the many teams being targeted due to controversial team names and/or mascots. Currently, the Redskins are receiving the most heat from racial groups. However, professional sport teams are not the only teams receiving negative remarks; there are well known colleges that are also receiving huge blows for racial symbols.

Some school 's team mascot names have a history behind their name and the term means something distasteful. For example, in the Ute article it states “The Redskins term refers to a time in history when the king of England called for the scalping of Indians as proof of bounty.” Lots of Indigenous people refuse to say the term “Redskins” because it means the same thing as the N-word. This shows that it has a negative nuance for the Native community and it means something atrocious.

On the sidewalks of Rochester in the year 1942, Walter Chaplinsky was arrested for repeating ' You are a God damned racketeer' and 'a damned Fascist’ to a police officer. Chaplinsky’s statements violated a New Hampshire law prohibiting offensive, derisive, or annoying words or sounds said unto an individual or party in a public place. He appealed the decision of the District Court, and when it came to the Supreme Court, they came to a profound decision. Supreme Court Justice Murphy said there are certain words that could reasonably result in a fight or a breach of peace when uttered.