Redskins

Technical topics regarding tax preparation.
#1
Nilodop  
Posts:
18753
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
There are 17 organizations with "Redskins" in their name in the IRS list of those that are eligible to receive tax-deductible contributions. I don't know trademark law. I barely know tax law. But if that name is disparaging, could they lose their exemptions? (There are also 98 with "Indians" in their name, but Trademark may not have decided yet whether that is disparaging).
 

#2
makbo  
Posts:
6840
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 3:44pm
Location:
In The Counting House
No.
 

#3
Posts:
5868
Joined:
23-Apr-2014 9:30am
Location:
**********
I heard a guy from up north call in to the local Sports Radio Talk Show the other day. He says he finds the name "Yankees" disparaging and was wondering if he should sue.

One wonders if the cost of seeking trademark protection for a Name, which is later found to be disparaging and therefore, no longer receives trademark protection, can be written off as a loss. (But I suggest we wait for the verdict from the Court of Appeals).

Also, I think the consensus is that the name/word "Indian" would not have any issues. That is a proper name attached to a class of people. If you recall, Christopher Columbus was searching for a short-cut sailing/trade route to the "East Indies," which is basically south and southeast Asia, including India. His short-cut idea was to sail west. He never did reach the "East Indies" as we know. He ran into a bunch of islands in the Caribbean, which has been termed the "West Indies." And, owing to the close proximity of the Caribbean to the "Americas," those native to those lands were called "American Indians," or "Indians" for short. So, this is why we have "Indians" in America and "Indians" in India.
 

#4
Nilodop  
Posts:
18753
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
Makbo's answer is, of course, correct. The trademark law has provisions about disparagement, but Sec 501(c ) does not. This discussion http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2014/6/19/5 ... al-process is enlightening. Even if the team loses the appeal, they will continue to have substantial legal protections.
 

#5
Nilodop  
Posts:
18753
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
One wonders if the cost of seeking trademark protection for a Name, which is later found to be disparaging and therefore, no longer receives trademark protection, can be written off as a loss. (But I suggest we wait for the verdict from the Court of Appeals). One also wonders about the FIT treatment of the costs of the appeal.
 

#6
Jake  
Posts:
1384
Joined:
12-May-2014 3:19pm
Location:
Columbus, Ohio
I used to do some trademark law. US follows the English common law. Trademark rights are based on use. Federal registration provides some presumption of validity benefits. But as a practical matter no one is going to be able to start selling Washington Redskins merchandise without getting a license. There are also state trademark registrations that could help protect the "redskins" mark.
 

#7
Posts:
3299
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 7:01am
Location:
Near the fridge.
Nelly, when I saw the topic of this thread I was quite astonished, and ready for just about anything. But you kept it within the boundaries of this forum and stayed away from the inflammatory and incendiary hype that accompanies this topic elsewhere; I commend you for that. Thank you. No matter what those other schmucks might say, you're one of the good guys.

Harry B.
 

#8
Nilodop  
Posts:
18753
Joined:
21-Apr-2014 9:28am
Location:
Pennsylvania
Is that how you "spell" schmucks"?
 


Return to Taxation



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 808CPA808, CaptCook, exao, HowardS, JessCPA113, JoJoCPA, JR1, KoiCPA, ManVsTax, missingdonut, Nilodop, ny110010001, pegatha, SlipperyPencil, SUSAN, taoseno and 183 guests