The Washington Redskins, you may have heard, filed a rather unusual brief in federal court Tuesday. 
 
 Washington is appealing the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s decision to cancel the trademark for “Redskins” and is making its case by pointing out that trademarks have been granted for other names and phrases it says are offensive. 
 
 (Our editors say the names of trademarks are mostly too vulgar to print here, so we’ve gone way over the top and censored them all just to be safe. Deadspin has them helpfully blockquoted, though.) 
 
 We called those companies to see what they think about Dan Snyder’s team’s name. Sadly, we could only contact a few of the companies because several are sketchy offshore outfits or operate out of strip malls in Jacksonville. 
 
 Tranquil Blue Corp. — Owners of the P---- W--- S---- trademark 
 
 “I don’t really care. I’ve never met a Native American so I don’t want to speak for anyone.” 
 
 Nick Orlandino, CEO of Pipedream Products — Owners of the E----- C--------- G---- P------, A--- F------ and M----- M-- trademarks 
 
 “I think their level of play is offensive. Dan Snyder is a whack job. He is the Donald Trump of football. I don’t find the name to be offensive, though. I played a team called the Redskins when I was growing up and I always thought of it as any other mascot. Like having an army guy on your helmet.” 
 
 Chris Weeks, manager for the rap group N---- R---- 
 
 “That is a hilarious contention. Being a quarter Native American the name is definitely offensive. I think we have become desensitized to the objectification of Native Americans. For him to call out an African American group named N---- R---- is hilarious.” 
 
 Sarah Fendley, owner of Big City Coffee in Boise — Owner of the B-- T---- B---- trademark 
 
 (Washington’s lawyers even managed to disparage a charitable effort. B-- T---- B---- was created after Fendley lost a friend to breast cancer and $1 from every sale goes toward a breast cancer charity.) 
 
 “We have raised enough funds this year to fund 175 mammograms and if that's offensive then don't buy my coffee.” 
 
 Marie Cecile Anderson and Katy Frame, members of the musical duo R------- W----- 
 
 “Well, we’re a comedy band that sings funny songs that empower women and men. They're a football team that has a pointlessly racist name. We use the name R------- W----- in an ironic way that enhances our message and comedy. They play football while maintaining a pointlessly racist name... To have the Redskins say that our name is as offensive as a terrible as a worn out racial slur is insane and pretty desperate of them. If we had a chance, we'd love to tell them ‘Hey dudes, Get over it. Your name is waaaaaayyyyy more offensive than ours, but thanks for the free publicity!’” 
 
 Jason Greenfield, owner of the trademark for C--------- S---- D----- B---- 
 
 “Comparing our statement on an economic system with a slur against a group of people is ridiculous and offensive. Maybe not as offensive as their team name, but still pretty offensive.​” 

 The Washington Redskins logo is seen on the field before a National Football League preseason game at Fed-Ex Field in Landover, Md. (Alex Brandon/AP) 
 
 Nearly four months after a federal judge ordered the cancellation of the Washington Redskins’ federal trademark registrations for disparaging Native Americans, the National Football League team is appealing with a provocative tactic: listing the names of porn, clothing and beer companies that use offensive language but nonetheless have the support of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. 
 
 “By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: Take Yo Panties Off clothing; Dangerous Negro shirts . . . Midget-Man condoms and inflatable sex dolls,” the Redskins’ attorneys wrote in their opening brief filed Friday with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit, based in Richmond. The lawyers later added a footnote with 31 more trademark registrations, many of them unprintable in The Washington Post. On the list: “Party With Sluts . . . Redneck Army apparel . . . Booty Call sex aids . . . Dumb Blonde hair products.” 
 
 In their bid to preserve the Redskins’ trademark registrations, the team’s attorneys are making a two-pronged argument: How can the government allow federal trademark registrations for those inflammatory entities but strip the Redskins of their protections? And, regardless of how offensive a trademark’s name might be, how can the government reject a registration without infringing on First Amendment rights? 
 
 “A ban on registering ‘disparaging’ trademarks unconstitutionally burdens speech based on content and viewpoint, just as would a ban on registering copyrights for ‘disparaging’ books,” wrote the team’s attorneys, led by Lisa Blatt and Robert Raskopf. 
 
 Maury Lane, a spokesman for the team, said in a statement: “In fact, since 1870, over three million trademarks have been registered, and we have found none that have ever been cancelled for being disparaging. We believe that the government’s action tramples core principles of free speech and sets a dangerous precedent for other brands.” 
 
 The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has canceled the Washington Redskins’ trademark. Federal trademark law does not permit registration of trademarks that "may disparage" individuals or groups. Here's a look at the Redskins' logo and team imagery throughout the years. (Tom LeGro and Natalie Jennings/The Washington Post) 
 
 The team is on its third attempt in the past 18 months to save its trademark registrations. 
 
 [Federal judge orders cancellations of Redskins’ trademark registrations] 
 
 It lost the first round in mid-2014, when the federal Trademark Trial and Appeal Board declared in a 2-to-1 ruling that the name offends a substantial number of Native Americans and is therefore ineligible for federal trademark registration under the Lanham Act, which doesn’t permit such protection for names that “may disparage” or bring people into disrepute. 
 
 The appeal board had been petitioned by a group of five Native American activists, led by Amanda Blackhorse, a Navajo Nation member and social worker. 
 
 The Redskins sued Blackhorse and the four other Native Americans in federal court in Alexandria to overturn the ruling. But the team lost that round in July, after U.S. District Judge Gerald Bruce Lee upheld the appeal board’s ruling. 
 
 Most notably, Lee said stripping the team of its federal trademark registrations doesn’t violate its First Amendment rights. He said such protections are a form of government speech carrying the government’s endorsement and are therefore exempt from First Amendment scrutiny. 
 
 The Redskins’ attorneys, in their opening brief before the appeals court, contested Lee’s argument. 
 
 “No one today thinks registration reflects government approval,” they wrote. “But if this Court holds that it does, how will the government explain registrations like Marijuana for Sale . . . [or] Licensed Serial Killer? . . . Does registration of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints unconstitutionally endorse religion?” 
 
 Attorneys for Blackhorse declined to comment. They are expected to file a response in court by mid-January. 
 
 Daniel Snyder, the team’s owner, says the name honors Native Americans, and he has vowed never to change it. He points to many Native Americans who love the mascot, citing them as proof that opponents don’t speak for everyone. 
 
 [A Navajo high school emerges as a Washington Redskins defender] 
 
 The cancellation of the team’s trademark registrations won’t go into effect until the Redskins have exhausted the appeals process in federal court. Even if the team takes the case to the Supreme Court and loses, it can still use the name “Redskins” and leverage trademark protections under state law. Still, the team has argued that losing its protections could hurt its brand and aid copycats who want to sell unlicensed merchandise. 

 The Skins are desperately trying to preserve their trademark, which was canceled by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office last year and upheld by a federal judge this summer. It’s before a court of appeals now, and on Friday the team filed its opening brief. It appears it was written by Andrew Dice Clay. 
 
 The filing was first reported by the Washington Post, and you can read it here. The Skins are trying an interesting tactic: they’re listing a whole bunch of companies that are potentially offensive or obscene but have received trademark protections anyway. Revel in the mellifluous litany of frat-boy vulgarity: 
 
 The PTO has registered hundreds if not thousands of marks that the Team believes are racist, or misogynistic, vulgar, or otherwise offensive. By way of example only, the following marks are registered today: TAKE YO PANTIES OFF clothing; DANGEROUS NEGRO shirts; SLUTSSEEKER dating services; DAGO SWAGG clothing; DUMB BLONDE beer; TWATTY GIRL cartoons; BAKED BY A NEGRO bakery goods; BIG TITTY BLEND coffee; RETARDIPEDIA website; MIDGET-MAN condoms and inflatable sex dolls; and JIZZ underwear. These are not isolated instances. The government routinely registers pornographers’ marks: TEENSDOPORN.COM, MILFSDOPORN.COM, THUG PORN, GHETTO BOOTY, and BOUND GANGBANGS are but a few. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 Wait, there’s more: 
 
 No one today thinks registration reflects government approval. But if this Court holds that it does, how will the government explain registrations like MARIJUANA FOR SALE, CAPITALISM SUCKS DONKEY BALLS, LICENSED SERIAL KILLER, YID DISH, DIRTY WHOOORE CLOTHING COMPANY, and MURDER 4 HIRE?[4] 
 
 Let’s go to that footnote! 
 
 Other startling examples that would reflect government endorsement under the decision below include: SHANK THE B!T@H board game; CRACKA AZZ SKATEBOARDS; ANAL FANTASY COLLECTION, KLITORIS, and OMAZING SEX TOYS sex toys; HOT OCTOPUSS anti-premature ejaculation creams; OL GEEZER wines; EDIBLE CROTCHLESS GUMMY PANTIES lingerie; WTF WORK? online forum; MILF WEED bags; GRINGO STYLE SALSA; MAKE YOUR OWN DILDO; GRINGO BBQ; CONTEMPORARY NEGRO, F’D UP, WHITE TRASH REBEL, I LOVE VAGINA, WHITE GIRL WITH A BOOTY, PARTY WITH SLUTS, CRIPPLED OLD BIKER BASTARDS, DICK BALLS, and REDNECK ARMY apparel; OH! MY NAPPY HAIR shampoos; REFORMED WHORES and WHORES FROM HELL musical bands; LAUGHING MY VAGINA OFF entertainment; NAPPY ROOTS records; BOOTY CALL sex aids; BOYS ARE STUPID, THROW ROCKS AT THEM wallets; and DUMB BLONDE hair products. Word limits prevent us from listing more. 
 
 Advertisement 
 
 This feels like an entirely valid legal point to make. It’s also an argument that could be not-inaccurately summed up as “‘Washington Redskins’ is every bit as crude as ‘Twatty Girl,’ ‘Thug Porn,’ and ‘Dick Balls,’ but so what?” 
 
 At this point, it’s a fine argument. 
 
 [Washington Post]
– The Washington Redskins are trying to overturn a court ruling and preserve the trademark of their name, and team lawyers filed a remarkable court briefing last week. In it, they reel off a list of other names that have won trademark protection, with the basic argument of, wait, you let these through but think "Redskins" is offensive? The Washington Post notes that many of them can't be printed in its newspaper, but some of the ones it could print will give you a general idea: Take Yo Panties Off clothing, Dangerous Negro shirts, Midget-Man condoms and inflatable sex dolls, Party With Sluts, Redneck Army apparel, and Dumb Blonde hair products. In fact, the brief reads as if it were written by Andrew Dice Clay, notes Deadspin, which quotes it in all its glory. The team argues that not only have other dicey names received trademark protection, but that it would be a violation of First Amendment rights to block them. "A ban on registering ‘disparaging’ trademarks unconstitutionally burdens speech based on content and viewpoint, just as would a ban on registering copyrights for ‘disparaging’ books," write the team’s attorneys. Sports Illustrated called some of the companies named in the brief, including one whose name makes a creative connection between capitalism and donkey genitalia: "Comparing our statement on an economic system with a slur against a group of people is ridiculous and offensive," says the owner. "Maybe not as offensive as their team name, but still pretty offensive."