The ongoing drama surrounding the name of the NFL's Washington Redskins took another turn recently after a group requested to trademark the name Washington Bravehearts, leading some to speculate that the team could change its name soon.
A registration application was received by the U.S Patent and Trademark Office on Oct. 17. The purpose of the application was "Entertainment in the nature of football games." The owner is listed as Washington Bravehearts LLC in Potomac, Md., according to the application obtained by USA TODAY.
The NFL team in Washington said it has nothing to do with the application.
"There is no connection between the registering of this trademark and the Washington Redskins," said Tony Wyllie, senior vice president of the Washington Redskins.
Members of People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals is also stepping up in the debate and recently offered up a suggestion for a new name and suggested the team just change the logo.
PETA said the team could change the logo to a redskin potato.
"When you hear the word 'redskin,' what do you immediately think of?" wrote PETA's Alisa Mullins in a blog post. "Potatoes, of course! And who could be offended by a harmless redskin potato - except, maybe, for the Yukon Gold lobby (and if Alaska had a football team, rest assured that we'd be the first to suggest the Yukon Gold Diggers as a franchise name)."
"By keeping the name and adopting a heart-healthy, appealing logo, the Washington Redskins would set a powerful example on and off the field, and that's no small potatoes."
Even media figures are jumping into the debate.
Sports announcer Bob Costas of NBC Sports lent his views to the ongoing debate surround the Washington Redskins team name.
"Think for a moment about the term 'Redskins' and how it truly differs from [other team nicknames based on Native American images]," Costas previously said. "Ask yourself what the equivalent would be, if directed [at] African-Americans. Hispanics. Asians. Or members of any other ethnic group. When considered that way, 'Redskins' can't possibly honor a heritage, or a noble character trait, nor can it possibly be considered a neutral term."
"It is an insult, a slur, no matter now benign the present-day intent," Costas continued.