Hasta La Gadget!

The NFL franchise in Washington, D.C., received a major boost in its fight to save its controversial “Redskins” name Monday morning, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling in a separate legal dispute. 

At issue is the team’s federal trademark protections for the nickname, which Native American activists have described as a “dictionary-defined racial slur.” The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board invalidated those trademark protections in 2014, ruling that the name was “disparaging to Native Americans” and thus violated a clause in a federal trademark law.

The Supreme Court, however, struck down that clause Monday, ruling that the law’s prohibition on providing federal trademarks for disparaging terms or logos violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections.

The court’s ruling came in a case brought by a band named “The Slants,” which also lost its trademark protections after the trademark board said the moniker was disparaging to Asians and Asian-Americans. The band’s members are all Asian-American, and they argued that they were re-appropriating the term, rather than using it disparagingly. 

The Supreme Court agreed to hear The Slants’ case last year, after a lower court declared the anti-disparagement clause in trademark law unconstitutional in 2015.

“The commercial market is well stocked with merchandise that disparages prominent figures and groups, and the line between commercial and non-commercial speech is not always clear, as this case illustrates,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote in the majority opinion. “If affixing the commercial label permits the suppression of any speech that may lead to political or social ‘volatility,’ free speech would be endangered.”

The ruling won’t put an immediate end to the football team’s case. The Supreme Court last year rejected the team’s petition to have its case heard alongside The Slants’ case, and the team’s appeal of the initial trademark board ruling is still winding through lower courts.

It will, however, almost certainly lead to a reversal of the trademark board’s ruling, saving the team’s six trademark protections it had canceled. The team celebrated the Supreme Court’s ruling in a statement Monday morning.

“The Team is thrilled with today’s unanimous decision as it resolves the Redskins’ long-standing dispute with the government,” the statement from attorney Lisa Blatt read. “The Supreme Court vindicated the Team’s position that the First Amendment blocks the government from denying or cancelling a trademark registration based on the government’s opinion.”

The ruling is another major setback for Native Americans who have fought to change the team’s name for nearly 50 years. After years of protesting and asking the team’s owners to change the name, the activists began targeting the trademark protections in 1992, under the view that the anti-disparagement clause provided a leverage point against the nickname.

The trademark board handed them a victory in 1999, ruling against the team and canceling the trademarks. But that ruling was overturned in federal court in 2003, and the case died when the Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal in 2009.

A new group of activists filed a similar complaint against the team in 2007, asking the trademark board to once again review the name. The board ruled against Washington’s team in 2014. A year later, a federal court also ruled in favor of the activists in a separate lawsuit brought by the team.

The franchise and its owner, Daniel Snyder, immediately appealed the ruling, arguing that the disparagement clause violated the First Amendment. The case has been on hold pending the result of The Slants case.

In response to Monday’s ruling, Snyder released a statement via the team: “I am THRILLED! Hail to the Redskins.”

Snyder has said he would “NEVER” change the name. Even if the team lost the trademark protections, it wouldn’t be forced to drop the name. It would simply remove any federal protection for it, opening the team up to legal uncertainty and potential financial losses should they keep it.

The Native Americans who petitioned the board to invalidate the team’s trademarks said in a statement that they were “disappointed” with the Supreme Court’s ruling, but they also made the case that the name is still disparaging to Native Americans. 

“The Supreme Court has held that Congress cannot keep disparaging trademarks out of the federal registration program,” they said, “but the Court did nothing to cast doubt on the prior judicial findings that the Washington NFL team’s name and trademarks disparage Native Americans.”

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.

Last year, GM bought Cruise Automation, a startup focused on self-driving car technology, and now it appears the automotive giant is getting serious about creating HD maps. Cruise Automation has just announced that it’s recruiting a Head of Mapping,…

Being that I am from Texas, all my childhood memories of the beach revolve around Galveston, Texas. That means Gulf of Mexico water as dirty as a mud puddle, and sand roughly the temperature of the surface of the Sun. I remember taking a towel with me from the car, sprinting down the sand until my feet were near blistering, throwing the towel down and standing on it until I could move again, and then sprinting the way to the water to put out the flaming tootsies.

This minimal footwear from NakeFit would have solved this problem for sure. It’s basically thin protective layer which sticks to the soles of your feet. It’s elastic and promises to be easy to wear. It’s also anti-slip so you don’t have to worry about sliding and falling as much at the pool.

The product is on Kickstarter and has already blown through its goal by nearly 10x. A pack of 10 pairs of one-time-use NakeFits will cost you about $33(USD).

[via Laughing Squid]

There’s really no shortage of music services for your smartphone and many of you might be well aware that Google is running a music service of its own that the company calls Google Play Music. Back when the Galaxy S8 was announced in March, the company said that it had partnered with Samsung to provide Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+ additional features to further improve the listening experience. Google Play Music is now offering an exclusive feature for Samsung’s new flagship smartphone.

The additional features that Google initially announced for Galaxy S8 users include the ability to upload 100,000 songs instead of the usual 50,000. All Galaxy S8 owners are also eligible for a free three-month trial of Google Play Music All Access.

Google has released an exclusive feature for Play Music users on the Galaxy S8 and Galaxy S8+ called New Release Radio. It’s basically an online streaming radio feature which will offer a selection of the hottest tracks that will be personalized to suit the user’s preferences.

Google Play Music is only offering this feature to users with a new Samsung flagship at this point in time. However, it’s quite likely that this feature might be eventually released for all Google Play Music users down the line.

Galaxy S8 Gets An Exclusive Google Play Music Feature , original content from Ubergizmo. Read our Copyrights and terms of use.

WASHINGTON ― President Donald Trump on Monday reiterated his support for Republican Karen Handel in Georgia’s highly anticipated House runoff election, signaling how the race is being viewed as a bellwether for national politics.

In a morning tweet, Trump called on constituents in Georgia’s 6th District to “vote now for Karen H,” and criticized Democrats, who he said “want to stop tax cuts, good healthcare and Border Security.”

Tuesday’s runoff election between Handel and Democrat Jon Ossoff, who are vying for the suburban Atlanta seat recently vacated by Health and Human Services Secretary Tom Price, has attracted the attention of outside groups and leaders in both national parties. With spending surpassing $40 million last week, the contest has become the most expensive House race in U.S. history. 

Trump himself appeared at a fundraiser for Handel back in April, praising her as “incredible” and depicting Ossoff as “someone who is going to raise your taxes to the sky and destroy your health care.”

Vice President Mike Pence also hit the campaign trail for Handel earlier this month. Over the weekend, Price and Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue, Georgia’s former governor, appeared with Handel at a rally.

Turnout in Tuesday’s election is expected to be high. More than 140,000 voters participated in early voting, indicating huge interest in the special election.

With recent polls showing Ossoff narrowly leading Handel in the traditionally GOP district, Republicans are hoping to stave off defeat. Democrats, meanwhile, are hoping to capitalize on a groundswell of anti-Trump activism and finally achieve a victory after losing previous congressional special elections this year.

In April’s first-round election, Ossoff fell just a few thousand votes short of winning the seat outright.

Tuesday’s race is also seen as a referendum on the GOP’s efforts to repeal the Affordable Care Act, otherwise known as Obamacare.

Trump’s tweet that Democrats want to block “good healthcare” appears to contradict his assessment of Republicans’ health care legislation last week. Trump reportedly told Senate Republicans, who have been crafting their Obamacare repeal bill behind closed doors, that the House version of the bill was “mean” and implored them to pass a “more generous” version.

— This feed and its contents are the property of The Huffington Post, and use is subject to our terms. It may be used for personal consumption, but may not be distributed on a website.