Chicago Blackhawks Logo has to go?

[Anubis2051]

As for the Devil Rays, I always found it a bit odd that the religious right was able to get them to change their name but not the New Jersey Devils. It certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

The Devil Rays played in the deep south, the NJ Devils play in New Jersey. It's a world of difference. Not to mention, the NJ Devils at least have a local reasoning behind the name.

One day, I don't know when, all person based mascots will be gone.

that will be a sad day

Never will happen because, Notre Dame will always be the fighting Irish. I see the Indians retiring chief wahoo soon.

Why does everyone keep saying this? I don't think it will happen. The logo is too iconic.

[ltjets21]

I don't want to take sides in this debate, but knowing that it comes up here from time to time, I took this shot (with this board in mind) of an interesting T-shirt I saw outside of Wrigley Field starting last year:

I doubt it would satisfy the PC crowd or the traditionalists -- and it may have already been discussed here -- but I thought it was an interesting concept (and much better than the distinctly non-PC stuff that is normally sold on a bootleg shirt outside Wrigley). It wasn't worth starting a thread over, but now that it's here...

(P.S. I wonder who owns the trademark to this.)

My friend has one of hese shirts and I thought it originated from the concepts board here, I can't remember who designed it though.

Designed by Mike Ivall (MikePho3niX,) in case anyone was losing any sleep over it.

I live in NJ can I get this on the internet?

[IceCap]

As for the Devil Rays, I always found it a bit odd that the religious right was able to get them to change their name but not the New Jersey Devils. It certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

The Devil Rays played in the deep south, the NJ Devils play in New Jersey. It's a world of difference. Not to mention, the NJ Devils at least have a local reasoning behind the name.

I remember hearing a story that religious groups did petition the Devils to change their name, claiming that unless they changed their name they would never win a Stanley Cup

[aci]

As for the Devil Rays, I always found it a bit odd that the religious right was able to get them to change their name but not the New Jersey Devils. It certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

The Devil Rays played in the deep south, the NJ Devils play in New Jersey. It's a world of difference. Not to mention, the NJ Devils at least have a local reasoning behind the name.

I remember hearing a story that religious groups did petition the Devils to change their name, claiming that unless they changed their name they would never win a Stanley Cup

Guess the religious nuts were praying to the wrong god, eh?

[IceCap]

I would like to think that if there is any kind of higher power He would have better things to do than occupy Himself with the National Hockey League.

Now the NFL on the otherhand....

[Korbyn]

I live in an area that is heavily populated with Native Americans. It is very common to see them wearing a Blackhawks jersey. Some wear them casually, while others use them for jerseys in softball or hockey.

They do not find it offensive at all, instead take pride in the logo.

This article was a complete joke.

[andrewharrington]

As for the Devil Rays, I always found it a bit odd that the religious right was able to get them to change their name but not the New Jersey Devils. It certainly wasn't for lack of trying.

The Devil Rays played in the deep south, the NJ Devils play in New Jersey. It's a world of difference.

Florida is most definitely NOT in the 'Deep South/Bible Belt' region. And I'm also getting suspicious, iconic or not, that the Indians might slowly be gravitating toward the 'C' hat as a primary identity. They're using it on their BP hat, for one, as well as using it as the base for all their special event caps this year, like stars and stripes, for example. I would love to see a matching grey uniform with 'Cleveland' on it to match the cream-colored Sunday alternate uniform

[mfoster]

yh and I could tell you about the name/logo of our alma mater, the Oklahoma City University Chiefs. The name and logo were apparently so offensive that Abe Lemons could never recruit Native Americans, and none of those full blooded Kiowas he never recruited could never have become the Athletic Director at OCU, being so offended...

Oh, wait...

[MikePho3niX]

Yeah this is my design. Stolen from i think my first post on Icethetics. But im the one holding the TM to this. But i live in Toronto i don't know how i would enforce my rights to Off the truck t-shirt sellers in Chi-town. But i would love to get my hands on them for sure. They cant even make a good copy of it. sheesh.

[CubsFanBudMan]

Yeah this is my design. Stolen from i think my first post on Icethetics. But im the one holding the TM to this. But i live in Toronto i don't know how i would enforce my rights to Off the truck t-shirt sellers in Chi-town. But i would love to get my hands on them for sure. They cant even make a good copy of it. sheesh.

Sorry to hear that. I was hoping the designer at least was getting a cut, but I figured that wasn't the case based on where it was being sold (which is a stand that is regularly set up across the street from Wrigley -- it'd be easy to track down, unlike some of the guys who walk around with six shirts on a picket sign, who I've also seen sell it).

For what it's worth, I really like the concept. It's the only type of thing I could see the Blackhawks doing if they had to go away from the current logo.

[9erssteve]

well I look at it from a different angle

you can argue that it's not racist or assume it's not offensive to anybody but to me but that's not the point - it's just not a good image to reflect current society

case in point...there would NEVER ever ever ever ever be a NEW logo made by a professional sports team that would be the image of a native american man's face/likeness or that of any other minority group

the fact that it would never be created or accepted (if it was new) today speaks volumes as to just how outdated it is

with all the creativity and resources available today I'm sure someone could come up with a logo that is more reflective of current society and also is versatile, impactful and representative of the team

I always wish they would modernize the secondary logo (shoulder patch "C" w crossed tomahawk) and use that as the main logo, or simply design something based off the blackhawk name like an actual BLACK HAWK...someone could make a fierce looking black colored hawk that would probably look pretty awesome w the red & black color scheme

I don't think changing a logo means you're throwing everything about your team away...the blackhawks have a new fan base, a rejuvinated franchise and a young team and I really think all the people who would rather see the sun fall out of the sky than change the logo from the head of a native american are in the minority

While it may be true I actually find that stance more worrying and possibly more offensive than naming a team after a local tribe (I'm sorry I dont like the term native-american on principle, how can they be natives of america? It wasn't america until AFTER they were overrun) or minority group, PROVIDED the group in question has no objections and the term used is one they are happy with and not a degrading one.

By not naming teams after minorities you are essentially excluding them more, which in and of itself is a form of racism surely? Team names exist that are based around caucasian characters and no one is asking to have them removed, so to exclude those based on characters of other ethnicities could be called racist could it not? "We'll keep all the white one cos they dont offend anyone but the minority ones well they've got to go" who says the white ones dont offend anyone? Has anyone asked people about this or are they just making more assumptions? And that's the problem, the whole issue get completely clouded because more often than not it's people in power telling minorities what THEY should find offensive, and I find that far MORE wrong than anything else.

I'm sorry if I was of Blackhawk decent (which I'm not I'm Scottish), I could actually see myself taking more offense at say the Patriots logo than the Blackhawks one. I mean here's a logo that portrays a white man who's invaded what was essentially my ancestors lands and he's being made out to be a hero, or the Cowboys for pities sake how many Cowbays slaughtered millions of "indians" in all those hollywood movies, but no one would DARE suggest people might take offense at that? If you're a native of what is now called america would you not perhaps find those more team names more offensive than a team trying to honour what was the local people by taking on their ACTUAL name?

I'm not having a go, I'm asking a question of anyone genuinely affected by these types of naming issues to see what they truly find offensive in all this? If anything at all. Because at the end of the day I think the truth more often than not is it's not the groups concerned that push for these name changes, but rather politicians who want to be seen to be "improving relations" or doing their bit for "political correctness" when in truth what they're doing is causing more problems than they solve.

At the end of the day while these teams are named for natives of their areas what they are also doing is recognising history, and if it's okay to name teams after civil water veterans (Patriots) or prospectors in california (49ers) or Cattle herders (Cowboys) based on historical grounds WHY SHOULD IT BE WRONG to recognise the even earlier history of local areas by acknowledging the peoples who lived there first?

PROVIDED it's done respectfully and with their approval history can be a great tool for building support and helping ground a team in the local community and PEOPLE of ALL ethnicities make up that history of any area so surely they should be represented? Wouldn't that be the more politically correct stance to take than the one current being used?

9erssteve

[WBGMike]

Yeah this is my design. Stolen from i think my first post on Icethetics. But im the one holding the TM to this. But i live in Toronto i don't know how i would enforce my rights to Off the truck t-shirt sellers in Chi-town. But i would love to get my hands on them for sure. They cant even make a good copy of it. sheesh.

then you might want to check this out

http://www.mnmhockey.net/

[Buster]

One day, I don't know when, all person based mascots will be gone.

Good luck getting rid of the Yankees, Cowboys and Raiders...their owners won't go down easily.

Well, Jerry would for the right price...

[Mingjai]

Yeah this is my design. Stolen from i think my first post on Icethetics. But im the one holding the TM to this. But i live in Toronto i don't know how i would enforce my rights to Off the truck t-shirt sellers in Chi-town. But i would love to get my hands on them for sure. They cant even make a good copy of it. sheesh.

I hate to break bad news, but if a TM in being used in commerce, then it is deemed abandoned, and is no longer protected under U.S. copyright law. I don't know if you've been producing shirts or not, but if you aren't, then you've probably surrendered your trademark rights.

You still own the copyright for your designs and logos though.

[MikePho3niX]

Abandonment only happens 50 years after the Holder had passed away. Anyone can put a TM on anything and say they own it. I could do that with all the stuff on the board right. Does it mean if i go make a t-shirt of any logo you made and make money off it its abandoned by you?

[JJSCOTT]

Mike I say make some shirts and do the logo the right way

I know I would buy a couple! Would REALLY love to have a jersey with that patch on it!!!

[Dedalvs]

At the end of the day while these teams are named for natives of their areas what they are also doing is recognising history, and if it's okay to name teams after civil water veterans (Patriots) or prospectors in california (49ers) or Cattle herders (Cowboys) based on historical grounds WHY SHOULD IT BE WRONG to recognise the even earlier history of local areas by acknowledging the peoples who lived there first?

PROVIDED it's done respectfully and with their approval history can be a great tool for building support and helping ground a team in the local community and PEOPLE of ALL ethnicities make up that history of any area so surely they should be represented? Wouldn't that be the more politically correct stance to take than the one current being used?

I agree--and also agree with those who've pointed out that the Blackhawks' name and logo are respectful. Raising a clamor about the Blackhawks is just nonsense, as there are far graver offenders than the Blackhawks' name and logo. First and foremost on the chopping block is the Redskins' name (their logo is actually quite realistic and non-offensive, in my opinion, though I happen to think it's not a good logo [why are there two feathers...?]). There was no tribe called "Redskins": It's purely a racial epithet--and the worst kind (exaggerating and denigrating an inherent physical characteristic of a group of people). It'd be as bad as calling a team the Washington Darkies, or the Washington Round Eyes.

The name has been challenged in court again and again. It's never gone forward because (as far as I can tell) (1) the defense argues there aren't enough offended parties who are "allowed" to be offended (apparently it makes no difference if a white or black individual is offended by the name) to make a difference, and (2) they also argue that when people today use the word "redskin", they use it exclusively to refer to the team or members thereof, and not as a racial epithet (i.e. its meaning has shifted completely). I find both arguments bogus. The judge usually finds a technicality to throw out the case whenever it comes to court, because it's clear that no judge wants to rule one way or another on it--at least not definitively. The case keeps getting dismissed, but not defeated. Getting that name changed is something I would get behind. This Blackhawks article is just capitalizing on Chicago's appearance in the Finals--and, in my opinion, lessens the potential impact and press of other more legitimate claims by comparison.

[DG_YouKnowWhatThatMeans]

Dear Mr. Cox:

At the risk of sounding insensitive, if you don't like team names or team logos that involve Native American imagery, don't buy Indians or Blackhawks or Redskins merchandise. If it offends you, don't watch or attend their games. Just don't ruin it for the people who like the tradition housed in this imagery and interpret its meaning differently than you do. Just as anyone has a right to be offended by Native American imagery, the owner of the team has a right to outfit the team however he sees fit, and the fans have a right to support it, even if it contains Native American imagery. If he's losing money because of boycotts, maybe the fanbase has spoken and it's time to change. Likewise, if he values the tradition in the name and image and he doesn't see it as a detriment to his business, he also has a right to display that tradition without interference from the law. Simple as that. Political correctness is slowly erasing our first amendment rights.

I don't support or oppose the presence of minority imagery in sports, but the issue absolutely can not be decided in a courtroom. It is covered by the first amendment. If you paid your way into an art museum and were offended by a piece you saw in the gallery, can you file suit and have a courtroom force the museum to remove the piece? No, or at least I would hope not. A more common and appropriate reaction would be to voice your displeasure to someone in charge and move on to the the next gallery. Or don't go to the museum anymore. Don't see why sports is subject to differnt rules than other media.

I think you meant to e-mail this to him, instead of posting it on a sports message board he'll never see. Whoops!

[Morgan33]

I think we can all agree that the logo isn't going anywhere now.

[Mingjai]

Abandonment only happens 50 years after the Holder had passed away. Anyone can put a TM on anything and say they own it. I could do that with all the stuff on the board right. Does it mean if i go make a t-shirt of any logo you made and make money off it its abandoned by you?

Sorry for the late response. A few things:

(1) Trademark protection only attaches to products used in commerce. If the mark is not (or will not be) used in commerce, it cannot be trademarked.

(2) Otherwise valid trademarks not used in commerce for a certain amount of time (usually 3-5 years) are deemed abandoned, and are afforded no legal protection. Trademarks not used in commerce for 2 years are assumed to be abandoned, but that assumption may be rebutted by the owner.

(3) The design of the mark itself may also be protected under copyright law, and even though the trademark has been abandoned, reproducing the copyrighted design would be copyright infringement, but not trademark infringement.