<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Symbolism on The Findings Report</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/symbolism/</link><description>Recent content in Symbolism on The Findings Report</description><generator>Hugo</generator><language>en-us</language><lastBuildDate>Sun, 09 Jul 2017 08:14:00 -0700</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://www.findingsreport.com/tags/symbolism/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><item><title>Symbols and Stereotypes</title><link>https://www.findingsreport.com/2017/07/09/symbols-and-stereotypes/</link><pubDate>Sun, 09 Jul 2017 08:14:00 -0700</pubDate><guid>https://www.findingsreport.com/2017/07/09/symbols-and-stereotypes/</guid><description>&lt;p&gt;My professional life relies upon two human truths: the power of symbols and the influence of stereotypes. Brands, particularly logos, are symbols that are designed to activate a stereotype. For example, most people imagine the stereotype of an athlete when they are exposed to the Nike swoosh. In fact, that symbiosis is what gives the Nike brand its cachet and market value.&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;Yet the connection between symbol and stereotype has a dark side. A few weeks ago, the Supreme Court overruled a federal court decision on the case of &lt;a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/supreme-court-rejecting-trademarks-that-disparage-others-violates-the-first-amendment/2017/06/19/26a33ffa-23b3-11e7-a1b3-faff0034e2de_story.html?utm_term=.54a63a696960"&gt;Matal v. Tam&lt;/a&gt;. The lower court’s decision denied trademark protection for disparaging names and symbols. That decision had a ripple effect on major franchises like the Washington Redskins. Had the Court upheld the lower court’s decision, the Redskins would have lost their ability to litigate against companies that wished to copy their logo or use their brand identity without permission.&lt;/p&gt;</description></item></channel></rss>