<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/</link>
	<description>Patents, Software Patents, Patent Applications &#38; Patent Law</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 07:58:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: High Court Passes on Washington Redskins Trademark Case « Connecticut Technology &#38; Intellectual Property</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9368</link>
		<dc:creator>High Court Passes on Washington Redskins Trademark Case « Connecticut Technology &#38; Intellectual Property</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:04:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9368</guid>
		<description>
[...] Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog has posted an excellent summary of this case, and its long history.  Attorney Quinn explains why the Supreme Court took a pass on hearing this appeal: It is impossible to know why the Supreme Court did not decide to hear this case, that information is known only to the Justices on the Supreme Court. What is known, however, is that there were not 4 Justices who wanted to hear the case, which is why it was not accepted by the Supreme Court. I do still continue to believe that the right legal decision has been reached here in this case. There simply was no evidence to support the challenge and the [Trademark Trial and Appeals Board] should never have ruled as they did. While we can argue over whether the term “Redskin” is disparaging, and it almost certainly is disparaging, in order for the plaintiffs to prevail the law would have had to be ignored, and evidence from years after the fact would have needed to be relied upon in exchange for evidence in existence at the relevant time, namely the time or registration. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog has posted an excellent summary of this case, and its long history.  Attorney Quinn explains why the Supreme Court took a pass on hearing this appeal: It is impossible to know why the Supreme Court did not decide to hear this case, that information is known only to the Justices on the Supreme Court. What is known, however, is that there were not 4 Justices who wanted to hear the case, which is why it was not accepted by the Supreme Court. I do still continue to believe that the right legal decision has been reached here in this case. There simply was no evidence to support the challenge and the [Trademark Trial and Appeals Board] should never have ruled as they did. While we can argue over whether the term “Redskin” is disparaging, and it almost certainly is disparaging, in order for the plaintiffs to prevail the law would have had to be ignored, and evidence from years after the fact would have needed to be relied upon in exchange for evidence in existence at the relevant time, namely the time or registration. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: High Court Passes on Washington Redskins Trademark Case « CONNECTICUT SPORTS LAW</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9367</link>
		<dc:creator>High Court Passes on Washington Redskins Trademark Case « CONNECTICUT SPORTS LAW</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:03:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9367</guid>
		<description>
[...] Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog has posted an excellent summary of this case, and its long history.  Attorney Quinn explains why the Supreme Court took a pass on hearing this appeal: It is impossible to know why the Supreme Court did not decide to hear this case, that information is known only to the Justices on the Supreme Court. What is known, however, is that there were not 4 Justices who wanted to hear the case, which is why it was not accepted by the Supreme Court. I do still continue to believe that the right legal decision has been reached here in this case. There simply was no evidence to support the challenge and the [Trademark Trial and Appeals Board] should never have ruled as they did. While we can argue over whether the term “Redskin” is disparaging, and it almost certainly is disparaging, in order for the plaintiffs to prevail the law would have had to be ignored, and evidence from years after the fact would have needed to be relied upon in exchange for evidence in existence at the relevant time, namely the time or registration. [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Gene Quinn of IP Watchdog has posted an excellent summary of this case, and its long history.  Attorney Quinn explains why the Supreme Court took a pass on hearing this appeal: It is impossible to know why the Supreme Court did not decide to hear this case, that information is known only to the Justices on the Supreme Court. What is known, however, is that there were not 4 Justices who wanted to hear the case, which is why it was not accepted by the Supreme Court. I do still continue to believe that the right legal decision has been reached here in this case. There simply was no evidence to support the challenge and the [Trademark Trial and Appeals Board] should never have ruled as they did. While we can argue over whether the term “Redskin” is disparaging, and it almost certainly is disparaging, in order for the plaintiffs to prevail the law would have had to be ignored, and evidence from years after the fact would have needed to be relied upon in exchange for evidence in existence at the relevant time, namely the time or registration. [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: About supreme court, washington redskins&#8217;, hear redskins, team, native &#124; Find me About</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9335</link>
		<dc:creator>About supreme court, washington redskins&#8217;, hear redskins, team, native &#124; Find me About</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:39:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9335</guid>
		<description>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: libhomo</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9333</link>
		<dc:creator>libhomo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 12:40:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9333</guid>
		<description>I&#039;ve been calling them the Whiteyskins for years.  What goes around should come around.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I&#8217;ve been calling them the Whiteyskins for years.  What goes around should come around.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: About supreme court, washington redskins, native american, hear redskins, team &#124; Find me About</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9331</link>
		<dc:creator>About supreme court, washington redskins, native american, hear redskins, team &#124; Find me About</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:22:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9331</guid>
		<description>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: About hear redskins, washington redskins, native, supreme court, team &#124; Find me About</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9329</link>
		<dc:creator>About hear redskins, washington redskins, native, supreme court, team &#124; Find me About</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 Nov 2009 03:40:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9329</guid>
		<description>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] While it is not easy for a Dallas Cowboys fan like myself to write about a Redskins victory with any enthusiasm, the Washington Redskins clearly scored a bigger victory on Monday than any victory this non-playoff team will have all season long on the &#8230;Read Original Story: Supreme Court Refuses Harjo, Redskins Can Keep Trademark &#8211; IPWatchdog.com [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: EG</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9321</link>
		<dc:creator>EG</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:05:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9321</guid>
		<description>Gene,

Sorry, I am and will forever remain a &quot;die-hard&quot; Redskin fan (and it&#039;s certainly been &quot;painful&quot; to be one this year).  And this suit was rightly kicked out on the ground of laches.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Gene,</p>
<p>Sorry, I am and will forever remain a &#8220;die-hard&#8221; Redskin fan (and it&#8217;s certainly been &#8220;painful&#8221; to be one this year).  And this suit was rightly kicked out on the ground of laches.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: uberVU - social comments</title>
		<link>http://www.ipwatchdog.com/2009/11/16/supreme-court-refuses-harjo-redskins-can-keep-trademark/id=7314/#comment-9319</link>
		<dc:creator>uberVU - social comments</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Nov 2009 21:57:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.ipwatchdog.com/?p=7314#comment-9319</guid>
		<description>
&lt;strong&gt;Social comments and analytics for this post...&lt;/strong&gt;

This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Supreme Court Refuses to hear Harjo Appeal regarding &quot;Redskin&quot; being disparaging. Redskins Can Keep Trademark. http://bit.ly/2EWQoM...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><strong>Social comments and analytics for this post&#8230;</strong></p>
<p>This post was mentioned on Twitter by ipwatchdog: Supreme Court Refuses to hear Harjo Appeal regarding &#8220;Redskin&#8221; being disparaging. Redskins Can Keep Trademark. <a href="http://bit.ly/2EWQoM.." rel="nofollow">http://bit.ly/2EWQoM..</a>.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

