Für unsere Gäste » infringe the trademark. For

OXFORD, Ohio -- Gus Ragland threw four touchdown passes to lead Miami (Ohio) to its fourth straight victory, 37-17 over Central Michigan on Friday night.Ragland completed 13 of 21 passes for 218 yards in his fourth start, which coincides with the winning streak for the Redhawks (4-6, 4-2 Mid-American).Kenny Young had a 72-yard touchdown run and a touchdown reception in the second half to help Miami put the game away.Ragland connected with Jared Murphy for 10 yards and Ryan Smith for 12 in the first quarter for a 13-7 lead. His 6-yarder to Sam Shisson in the second gave Miami a 20-17 lead at the half.Young has his long run in the third quarter and a 22-yard receiving touchdown in the fourth.Jahray Hayes had a pair of 1-yard TD runs for the Chippewas (5-6, 2-4). His first one opened the scoring and the second made it 14-13 early in the second. Adidas Capitals Jerseys . -- Ty Montgomery had 290 all-purpose yards and two touchdowns, and fifth-ranked Stanford held on to beat No. Jaromir Jagr Jersey . This should be celebrated because it will not always be this way. With the amount of money given to players by their clubs these days, it is a wonder that so many of those teams allow the sport to continue to take away many of their assets so they can play for a different team in the middle of their season. http://www.cheapcapitalschinajerseys.com/tom-wilson-jersey/ . 8 Kansas to a 64-63 win over Texas Tech on Tuesday night. The freshman from Vaughan, Ont. Braden Holtby Jersey . Three came down to the fourth quarter while quarterbacks continued to shine in all four games; so important to the overall quality of the game. Womens Capitals Jerseys . The International Olympic Committee released the official list of bid cities on Friday after the deadline for applications had passed. The candidates -- all previously announced in their own countries -- are: Almaty, Kazakhstan; Beijing; Krakow, Poland; Lviv, Ukraine; Oslo, Norway; and Stockholm. WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court is taking up a First Amendment clash over the governments refusal to register offensive trademarks, a case that could affect the Washington Redskins in their legal fight over the team name.The justices agreed Thursday to hear a dispute involving an Asian-American rock band called the Slants, but they did not act on a separate request to hear the higher-profile Redskins case at the same time.Still, a high court ruling in favor of the Slants could bolster the football teams legal fight. Both groups argue that it is unconstitutional for the government to reject trademark rights for offensive speech.The trademark dispute is one of eight new cases the Supreme Court added to its calendar for the term that starts Monday. The court continues to operate with only with eight justices since Antonin Scalia died in February. His successor appears unlikely to be confirmed until sometime after the election.In the Slants case, front man Simon Tam tried to trademark the name in 2011, but the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office denied the request on the ground that it disparages people of Asian descent. He sued, and a federal appeals court ruled last year that the law barring offensive trademarks violates free speech rights.The Redskins hoped to piggyback on the bands case, asking the Supreme Court to consider both disputes at the same time. The trademark office canceled the teams trademarks last year after finding they are disparaging to Native Americans.But the teams appeal has not even been heard yet by a federal appeals court in Richmond, Virginia. In an unusual request, the team asked the Supreme Court to intervene before the lower court acts. The high court almost never grants such requests.Tam says his goal in choosing the name was to transform a derisive term about the shape of Asian eyes into a statement of ethnic and cultural pride. The Redskins have similarly claimed their name honors American Indians, but the team has faced years of legal challenges from Indian groups that say the name is racist.The team has also come under intense public pressure to change the name, but owner Dan Snyder has refused.In the bands case, a divided federal appeals court in Washington, D.C., struck down a portion of the 70-year-old federal trademark law. The courts majority said the First Amendment protects even hurtful speech that harms members of oft-stigmatized communities.ddddddddddddIt is a bedrock principle underlying the First Amendment that the government may not penalize private speech merely because it disapproves of the message it conveys, Judge Kimberly Moore said for the majority.In dissent, Judge Alan Lourie said the decision interferes with the governments authority to filter out certain undesirable marks from the federal trademark registration system. He said the ruling would lead to further the degradation of civil discourse.The Obama administration is urging the high court to overturn the ruling. The government says the law simply reflects Congress judgment that the federal government should not affirmatively promote the use of racial slurs and other disparaging terms by granting the benefits of registration.The administration also argues that the law does not restrict speech because the band is still free to use the name even without trademark protection.The American Civil Liberties Union and other groups have supported the Slants and the Redskins in their legal fights. The ACLU says the government cant withhold benefits just because it disagrees with the content of someones speech.The Slants and the Redskins can continue using their preferred names even without trademark protection. But a trademark confers certain legal benefits, including the power to sue competitors that infringe the trademark. For the Redskins, the team could lose millions if it cant block the sale of counterfeit merchandise.The Redskins say they have an even stronger case against the government than the Slants because team has already relied on financial advantages of trademark protection for many years. The team registered six trademarks including the name between 1967 and 1990.The justices will hear arguments in Lee v. Tam, 15-1293, early next year.Other new cases the justices agreed to take up on Thursday include:-a dispute over the minimum standards that public schools must meet to help learning-disabled students-whether state laws can prohibit merchants from imposing fees on customers who use credit cards-the Obama administrations appeal of lower court rulings making it harder to deport immigrants whove been convicted of crimes ' ' '