Washington Nationals name dispute?

[Lee.]

I would like to hijack this thread for a moment, and remind everyone that I believe the team should be renamed the DC Cabs.

You may now continue with your heated debate.

[slapshot]

I would like to hijack this thread for a moment, and remind everyone that I believe the team should be renamed the DC Cabs.

You may now continue with your heated debate.

I pity you, fool!

[BallWonk]

But in its legal filings, Bygone has essentially argued, "Well, gosh, we never expected an actual baseball team to have any interest in using the name Washington Nationals. Heavens, what an unexpected coincidence! How could we possibly have known?"

I think it might be believable because at that time I think everyone thought such a team would be called the Senators.

That doesn't fly at all. For one thing, "Nationals" was the only DC-related historical baseball team name that was available to squat. I'm sure they would have squatted "Washington Senators" and "Grays" too, if those trademarks were not already held by legitimate businesses. For another thing, it was a decent bet that a new team wouldn't be named the "Senators." Even if someone were unaware of the obvious hostility such a name would breed in DC on political grounds, there is the element of baseball history to consider. And Bygone Sports claims its whole schtick is knowing and exploiting baseball history. So the squatters were well aware that the "Senators" were actually named the "Nationals" for most of their life in Washington, and that the Senators name is associated universally with futility, failure, no small amount of racism, and a twice-over betrayal of the public love of the team through disgraceful relocations.

Bygone's business plan in late 2002 was predicated on the emergence of increased public demand for merchandise bearing the name "Washington Nationals." To plead now that they never expected there might be any increased public demand for "Washington Nationals" merchandise is beyond insulting. It's the kind of argument that if they made it to your face you'd feel compelled to punch them in the nose, and not even the Dalai Lama would blame you for it.

[M59]

In 1846, thinking they had WAAAAAY too much land in the Federal District, the US government gave Virginia back the land it had ceded for DC. It's called retrocession, and it's the solution to the "lack of senators problem" in DC. It is not, however a solution to what really pisses off the DC council, which is the "lack of jobs beyond mayor for DC politicians problem". And, given the amount of armed mayhem that takes place in the District on any given day, I suppose its residents could muck things up like Baghdad, were they so inclined.

Also:

This copyright claim should be thrown out on its ass...

The Nationals number font is still bone-ugly

And GW Bush is a moron.

Thanks, and goodnight.

[redsfan39]

Bring this up anywhere around here and you'll be argueing for hours...In the meantime, I'll read BallWonk's website, it makes me laugh.

Thanks, but we just declared an Angry Rivalry with Cincy. Not only do we have your cast-off GM ruining our club, now we have some Cincy-based intellectual-property squatters trying to steal our name. Hands off the Nats, Cincy! Freakin' Commies.

Well call me divided, I live in Chantilly Virginia, not too far from you. Hence my "around here" comment.

[VitaminD]

I would like to hijack this thread for a moment, and remind everyone that I believe the team should be renamed the DC Cabs.

You may now continue with your heated debate.

I pity you, fool!

Lammykins! We ain't got no time for yo jibba-jabba! This is a real debate, fool!

[Brian in Boston]

So the squatters were well aware that the "Senators" were actually named the "Nationals" for most of their life in Washington...

To the best of my knowledge, Major League Baseball has never filed with the USPTO for the rights to the name "Washington Nationals". Rather, they've filed for protection of their "Washington Nationals DC" logo and their "Nationals" wordmark logo. By contrast, the Metropolitan Washington Baseball Limited Partnership and Bygone Sports have registered the "Washington Nationals" name. The MWBLP let their claim on the name go "dead". Bygone Sports has not, which is why they're willing to fight Major League Baseball over the name.

Bottom line? Major League Baseball's "verbal agreement" with Bygone Sports is as good as the paper it was printed on. Which is to say, not very good - or legal - at all. The folks at MLB dropped the ball.

[logodawg]

So the squatters were well aware that the "Senators" were actually named the "Nationals" for most of their life in Washington...

However, the team was never officially or legally named the Nationals. The official/legal name of both Washington-based American League squads was the Senators. The use of Nationals and Nats was as additional nicknames, bestowed upon the team by fans and the media. However, said additional nicknames were never registered for copyright/trademark protection.

As a result, Major League Baseball has never filed with the USPTO for the rights to the name "Washington Nationals". Rather, they've filed for protection of their "Washington Nationals DC" logo and their "Nationals" wordmark logo. By contrast, the Metropolitan Washington Baseball Limited Partnership and Bygone Sports have registered the "Washington Nationals" name. The MWBLP let their claim on the name go "dead". Bygone Sports has not, which is why they're willing to fight Major League Baseball over the name.

Bottom line? Major League Baseball's "verbal agreement" with Bygone Sports is as good as the paper it was printed on. Which is to say, not very good - or legal - at all. The folks at MLB dropped the ball.

Actually, according to the sportslogos.net baseball section, the team that is now the Twins, was in fact the Washington Nationals for 50 years.

[Your Name Here]

I only say this about the Senators: First in war, first in peace, last in the American League. If they're going to become the Senators, they'll have to switch leagues.

[The_Admiral]

Would certain people be as hung up on DC representation if that didn't mean guaranteed seats for the Democrats?

[BallWonk]

Would certain people be as hung up on DC representation if that didn't mean guaranteed seats for the Democrats?

Yes, they would. DC residents don't want seats for Democrats, they want seats for themselves. And though most DC residents happen to be Democrats, a lot of them still feel betrayed by the national Democratic Party.

Remember, in 1993 and 1994 Democrats controlled the White House and both houses of Congress, as well as a majority of state legislatures, and could have acted either to pass legislation (the course it takes for statehood) or to submit and probably pass a constitutional amendment (the course it takes to grant DC residents their basic American rights without statehood). But Democrats in Congress did not do so. Nobody is for DC representation on partisan grounds, but most congressional Republicans are openly against it on partisan grounds. There are a fair number of honorable exceptions, however, Republicans who actually believe in the basic principles upon which America was founded, and with a little bit of irony a Republican bill to grant a House seat to DC and another seat to Utah might be DC's best shot at getting voting representation in at least one house of Congress.

To be fair, I do detect some partisan bias on the pro- side from the complete rejection that my brilliant, can't-miss strategy for DC statehood has received from leaders of the statehood movement. My plan? DC already has a statehood constitution on the books, under which DC would become the state of "New Columbia." I say change the name so that if DC becomes the fifty-first star on the American flag, it enters the union as the state of "Reagan." Then see which Republican is willing to vote against giving the Gipper the ultimate honor. Not even Lincoln has a state named after him (though Washington does, as do two British queens, two British kings, a couple of lesser British nobles, and one king of France.) Plus they've already named the airport and the biggest and most expensive federal office building in town after the guy, so the whole city is the obvious next step.

As an added bonus, making DC the state of Reagan would also help to kill of the "Senators" name, since the Reagan Senators just sounds silly. (Although the Reagan Nationals might be just as bad, since that's also the name of the airport. Might have to switch to "Americans," "Grays," or "Potomacs" in that case.)

[BallWonk]

Problem: The only snappy syllable you can extract from that to turn into a nickname is the "Cans."

Nice logo work, though.

[Bleujayone]

Problem: The only snappy syllable you can extract from that to turn into a nickname is the "Cans."

Nice logo work, though.

Don't the Rochester Americans always go by "Amerks" for short?

I'd still pick Senators for a new name though since people from other countries sometimes refer to Americans as "Yanks" and somebody else already cornered the market on that name.

If Nationals and Senators are out, I think "Sentinels" sounds good. Sure I got it from a goofy movie, but since there are Sentinels stationed on Arlingtion National Cemetary and several other national monuments around DC, it might not be such a bad idea. Plus that way they're not sharing a name with another team or sport.

[leopard88]

As an added bonus, making DC the state of Reagan would also help to kill of the "Senators" name, since the Reagan Senators just sounds silly. (Although the Reagan Nationals might be just as bad, since that's also the name of the airport. Might have to switch to "Americans," "Grays," or "Potomacs" in that case.)

I don't think "Reagan Grays" works either. He went to great lengths to hide his gray during his presidency.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I have nothing to add to the conversation other than the fact that I love Washington DC and I love their license plates.

Also, "Washington Americans" sounds too vanilla. I think Dodgers or the recently retired Bullets would be better, but that's probably in poor taste.

[leopard88]

I think Dodgers or the recently retired Bullets would be in better taste, but that's probably in poor taste.

Don't you think the LA Dodgers might have something to say about that?

[DG_ThenNowForever]

I think Dodgers or the recently retired Bullets would be in better taste, but that's probably in poor taste.

Don't you think the LA Dodgers might have something to say about that?

Next time a trolley strolls through downtown LA, they can complain about the Dodgers being in Washington.

You know, after re-reading that, that's just stupid. I was going to say how LA stole the team from Brooklyn, but my parents were kids then and I certainly don't care now. And I was going to say how baseball names in LA are pointless, as evidenced by the The Angels Angles of Anaheim, but that's been done to death already.

Basically, I think Washington Dodgers sounds good and it seem like everyone gets a chance to make fun of DC crime so I was taking mine.

[amare32]

To be fair, I do detect some partisan bias on the pro- side from the complete rejection that my brilliant, can't-miss strategy for DC statehood has received from leaders of the statehood movement. My plan? DC already has a statehood constitution on the books, under which DC would become the state of "New Columbia." I say change the name so that if DC becomes the fifty-first star on the American flag, it enters the union as the state of "Reagan." Then see which Republican is willing to vote against giving the Gipper the ultimate honor. Not even Lincoln has a state named after him (though Washington does, as do two British queens, two British kings, a couple of lesser British nobles, and one king of France.) Plus they've already named the airport and the biggest and most expensive federal office building in town after the guy, so the whole city is the obvious next step.

Brilliant! Who could argue against naming the 51st state in honor of THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME?!

Seriously, they've named everything else after him. I hear they want his face to replace FDR's on the dime.

[DG_ThenNowForever]

To be fair, I do detect some partisan bias on the pro- side from the complete rejection that my brilliant, can't-miss strategy for DC statehood has received from leaders of the statehood movement. My plan? DC already has a statehood constitution on the books, under which DC would become the state of "New Columbia." I say change the name so that if DC becomes the fifty-first star on the American flag, it enters the union as the state of "Reagan." Then see which Republican is willing to vote against giving the Gipper the ultimate honor. Not even Lincoln has a state named after him (though Washington does, as do two British queens, two British kings, a couple of lesser British nobles, and one king of France.) Plus they've already named the airport and the biggest and most expensive federal office building in town after the guy, so the whole city is the obvious next step.

Brilliant! Who could argue against naming the 51st state in honor of THE GREATEST AMERICAN PRESIDENT OF ALL TIME?!

Seriously, they've named everything else after him. I hear they want his face to replace FDR's on the dime.

Actually, they want to knock Hamilton off of the ten dollar bill. Since current American conservatism tries its hardest not to recognize anything before 1980 (except that Carter wore cardigans and some silly little court decision in 1973), they figure most people won't notice or care.

And do be prepared for National Reagan day. It was bad enough I couldn't buy a stamp the day he officially died (and don't think he hadn't been dead for years), the rampant Reaganism idolatry is on its way to get officially completely and nuttily out of hand.

Oh, back on topic, gooooooooooo Nats. Or whatever.

[pooter]