CS85

Chief Wahoo Departs: Indians remove logo from brand in 2019

Recommended Posts

55 minutes ago, coco1997 said:

If Cleveland ever re-adopts the Spiders nickname...

 

That's gorgeous. Add some red and you're golden.

 

Anyway, I'm glad this finally happened. Now to deal with Washington...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confident that when 2019 rolls around we'll have a new C logo for the team. We might even get hints of it when they reveal the 2019 All Star Game logo later this Summer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Duck_Duck said:

Ugh, why do I feel such a sense of disappointment in this announcement?  I've been looking forward to this for a very long time.

 

On the one hand, yay! Finally some progress.  It's 2018 and FINALLY there is enough pressure on the franchise that they'll succumb to doing the right thing.  Progress.

 

On the other hand, if they're finally able to admit their franchise is built around a racist and problematic brand . . . why retain the name?  Why wait a year other than to make tons of money off of wistfully racist nostalgic fans?  Why not relinquish the trademarks, re-brand the franchise, and embrace a new identity instead of clinging to the remaining threads of something that your current actions show you understand to be problematic? 

 

This is a sad half measure.

 

I definitely get the sentiment, but just as a team can’t snap its fingers two months before the season and change uniforms, it also can’t just abandon major pieces of its identity without notice. There are probably hundreds of thousands of pieces sitting in back rooms of retail stores, waiting for the start of the 2018 season, that would need to be destroyed, which would be a colossal waste.

 

What I find disappointing is that they feel the need to maintain the trademark. Let it go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they give up the TM then anyone can make wahoo gear and people will buy it either as a protest or just because they like it. Keeping the TM may not be about making lots of  $ off of throwback gear, it may just be about keeping it away from others. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, EvilChameleon said:

I'm confident that when 2019 rolls around we'll have a new C logo for the team. We might even get hints of it when they reveal the 2019 All Star Game logo later this Summer.

Even just outlining it full-time like your av would do wonders.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

If they give up the TM then anyone can make wahoo gear and people will buy it either as a protest or just because they like it. Keeping the TM may not be about making lots of  $ off of throwback gear, it may just be about keeping it away from others. 

 

It probably is, but it’s silly to me. Just quietly let it go. People are going to try and bootleg it no matter what happens, and now the team is going to be put in a position where it has to defend the very same symbol it just denounced as inappropriate.

 

Are there other options to protect a trademark no longer in use? I mean, leagues and teams sometimes own trademarks for old franchises but don’t really sell merchandise. Do the Titans or the NFL sell Oilers stuff? Does any MLB team or the league itself sell merchandise featuring *all* its old marks? I’ve seen the Cubs sell many different marks, but I haven’t noticed it with other teams.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

It probably is, but it’s silly to me. Just quietly let it go. People are going to try and bootleg it no matter what happens, and now the team is going to be put in a position where it has to defend the very same symbol it just denounced as inappropriate.

 

Are there other options to protect a trademark no longer in use? I mean, leagues and teams sometimes own trademarks for old franchises but don’t really sell merchandise. Do the Titans or the NFL sell Oilers stuff? Does any MLB team or the league itself sell merchandise featuring *all* its old marks? I’ve seen the Cubs sell many different marks, but I haven’t noticed it with other teams.

 

It doesnt make sense to me why you actually have to use it for commercial purposes to keep it. I thought it was just that you have to go after anyone that uses it without permission and that was good enough. Logically the rule (if in fact they’re being truthful) doesn’t make sense. If you created something, it shouldn’t be a use it / lose it proposition - especially something as relatively innocuous as a sports logo. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

It probably is, but it’s silly to me. Just quietly let it go. People are going to try and bootleg it no matter what happens, and now the team is going to be put in a position where it has to defend the very same symbol it just denounced as inappropriate.

 

Are there other options to protect a trademark no longer in use? I mean, leagues and teams sometimes own trademarks for old franchises but don’t really sell merchandise. Do the Titans or the NFL sell Oilers stuff? Does any MLB team or the league itself sell merchandise featuring *all* its old marks? I’ve seen the Cubs sell many different marks, but I haven’t noticed it with other teams.

 

Seems like the licensing fees would be restrictive if a vendor wanted to sell all historical marks of a team or a league.

 

I think maybe a tangent example was NFL 2K5 allowing nearly every historical uniform in the game.  But those were digital, non-tangible files.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, BringBackTheVet said:

 

It doesnt make sense to me why you actually have to use it for commercial purposes to keep it. I thought it was just that you have to go after anyone that uses it without permission and that was good enough. Logically the rule (if in fact they’re being truthful) doesn’t make sense. If you created something, it shouldn’t be a use it / lose it proposition - especially something as relatively innocuous as a sports logo. 

 

I think that’s the reason why everyone is seeing ulterior motives in this move. It just doesn’t make sense based on the (generally and admittedly limited) public knowledge of trademark law and the precedents they’ve seen in the market the last decade or so.

 

Under these pretenses, anyone can dig around and find an old mark that’s not being sold by the team and just start bootlegging it? I’m skeptical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, WSU151 said:

 

Seems like the licensing fees would be restrictive if a vendor wanted to sell all historical marks of a team or a league.

 

I think maybe a tangent example was NFL 2K5 allowing nearly every historical uniform in the game.  But those were digital, non-tangible files.

 

It’s possible, but unless you’re a local shop doing small runs focused only on your team(s), you’re probably buying a league-wide license and producing merchandise for all teams, no?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in grad school at Eastern Michigan in the early 90's when they went from "Hurons" to "Eagles" and for a few years after that you'd occasionally see some really crappy looking "I'm still Huron!!" bootleg T-shirts.  After a while they just sort of dried up and disappeared.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

It’s possible, but unless you’re a local shop doing small runs focused only on your team(s), you’re probably buying a league-wide license and producing merchandise for all teams, no?

 

Yes, likely so...though I'm at a strong disadvantage on the specifics of how league licensing deals work. Seems like it'd be more profitable for a league to offer marks in tiers, or with options, but I have no idea what's on the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Gothamite said:

 

Larry the Leprechaun is quite literally intended to be a leprechaun.  Same with Notre Dame’s logo. Those are not cartoon depictions of an entire group of dispossessed people.

 

I can’t help but notice that you’ve ignored the appropriation question.  People can name teams after themselves.  It’s trickier when you name your team after a group of people that you can’t represent and therefore don’t speak for.

 

And please don’t involve the tired cliche of “political correctness”. Wanting to get rid of a racist caricature like Little Red Sambo (or Little Black Sambo, for that matter) is not “political correctness.”  It’s just the decent thing to do, treating other human beings like human beings. 

Nice strawman you created.  The reference to political correctness applied to the name, not the logo, which most can agree was "Red Sambo" bad.  The origin of the name "Indians" was based on a former player named Louis Sockalexis, but I bet you knew that.  It's OK for European Americans to use stereotypes of other European Americans?  If an owner were to use what would now be a derogatory term for Jews, Polish, Italians etc. that would be fine because they aren't dispossessed people.  "Treating other human beings like human beings" or like leprechauns.  Got it.   After all, the Irish don't have any problems being compared to Leprechauns or stereotyped as fighting.

 

"New poll finds 9 in 10 Native Americans aren’t offended by Redskins name"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/new-poll-finds-9-in-10-native-americans-arent-offended-by-redskins-name/2016/05/18/3ea11cfa-161a-11e6-924d-838753295f9a_story.html


"In Arizona, a Navajo high school emerges as a defender of the Washington Redskins"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/in-arizona-a-navajo-high-school-emerges-as-a-defender-of-the-washington-redskins/2014/10/26/dcfc773a-592b-11e4-8264-deed989ae9a2_story.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, coco1997 said:

If Cleveland ever re-adopts the Spiders nickname...

 

cleveland-spiders.jpg?w=600

 

Thats a wonderful logo!

 

10 hours ago, BringBackTheVet said:

The C makes a 9th leg, but other than that, I'm sold.

 

I can see that but to me it was clearly the body of the spider. Before this I wasn't too high on the Cleveland Spiders but sign me up!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Bill81361 said:

 

Again, if that’s that’s how they want to represent their own culture, I don’t think anyone has a problem with it.

 

A line of rich white men (from George Preston Marshall to Dan Snyder) representing, owning a trademark for, and monetarily profiting from a culture or cultures that are not theirs is most definitely not the same situation.

 

A name that is not a slur, like Indians or Braves, may or may not be tolerable depending on who you ask, but it’s still kind of silly to hang onto when there are other options that are perfectly appropriate.

 

The party line is that these teams are honoring their namesakes. If you insist on using another human culture as the focal point of your brand, then you should be prepared to donate the profits from the use of that cultural imagery to better that culture; to actually honor them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

If you insist on using another human culture as the focal point of your brand, then you should be prepared to donate the profits from the use of that cultural imagery to better that culture; to actually honor them.

 

There are inherent flaws in that logic...even if you give money, people still complain, and whatever money is given away will never be enough.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-foundation-gave-37-million-to-more-than-20-tribes-the-team-says/2016/01/15/abc03fd0-baeb-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html?utm_term=.0890d84c7507

 

So really, we should just stick with names that don't affect anyone, like Avalanche, Hurricanes, Bears, and Sharks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

 

Again, if that’s that’s how they want to represent their own culture, I don’t think anyone has a problem with it.

It goes against the argument made by people outside a certain group that a word is offensive, when the group they claim to be speaking for embraces it.  I think if a word is deemed offensive or worse than no one should use or own it.   

Moreover, if the name is truly a problem, does "donating the profits" make it no longer a problem?  How does one determine the price tag for it no longer to be a problem?  If a problem can be dismissed with money, then why is Dan Snyder still under attack?  After all

"Redskins foundation gave $3.7 million to more than 20 tribes, the team says"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-foundation-gave-37-million-to-more-than-20-tribes-the-team-says/2016/01/15/abc03fd0-baeb-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, WSU151 said:

 

There are inherent flaws in that logic...even if you give money, people still complain, and whatever money is given away will never be enough.  https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-foundation-gave-37-million-to-more-than-20-tribes-the-team-says/2016/01/15/abc03fd0-baeb-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html?utm_term=.0890d84c7507

 

Of course. I’d rather do away with them, but people are going to continue to insist that this practice is okay, probably for decades. Philosophically, though, all I’m saying is that if you think it’s okay to use another culture as a profit device, you should be prepared to to hand that money to the people of that culture.

 

I also think there are ways to do this respectfully and in a mutually beneficial way. Florida State is a decent example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, andrewharrington said:

I also think there are ways to do this respectfully and in a mutually beneficial way. Florida State is a decent example.

 

Yeah - similarly, Utah works with the Utes (and other tribes within Utah) as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, Bill81361 said:

It goes against the argument made by people outside a certain group that a word is offensive, when the group they claim to be speaking for embraces it.  I think if a word is deemed offensive or worse than no one should use or own it.   

Moreover, if the name is truly a problem, does "donating the profits" make it no longer a problem?  How does one determine the price tag for it no longer to be a problem?  If a problem can be dismissed with money, then why is Dan Snyder still under attack?  After all

"Redskins foundation gave $3.7 million to more than 20 tribes, the team says"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/redskins-foundation-gave-37-million-to-more-than-20-tribes-the-team-says/2016/01/15/abc03fd0-baeb-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html

Peace

 

On the same token, you can’t assume that a single high school community represents the consensus view of the entire Navajo nation, let alone the entire collection of First Nations.

 

I prefer not to speak for people of another culture, and I don’t necessarily think that’s the intention of people who’d like to see some of these trademarks retired. There are some who take it a bit far, but supporting a minority group in a movement to do something decent does not necessarily equal speaking for them. Clearly, not much value is given to the First Nations voice as a whole, since there have been protests for decades and only colleges and high schools have really done anything to address it.

 

Do you think 3.7 million is all the money Dan Snyder makes from the name and logo of his team? Personally, I don’t think it’s appropriate to pocket any money from the imagery of another culture. We’re simply beyond that as a species. We can travel to see other cultures, we can research them, we can honor them by helping them in tangible ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.