Fox sues Franken over 'fair and balanced'

[lozina]

http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html

Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks to force a Penguin publisher, Dutton books, to rename the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." It also asks for unspecified damages.

You gotta be kidding me... is that a little extreme? Am I the only one who finds it deeply disturbing that someone can trademark something as general as the statement 'fair and balanced' and sue anyone who uses it? Maybe I can trademark 'Hi' and sue anyone using my word.

 

[ClueLis]

Fox will do anything to halt the spread of liberal ideals.

 

[BOBDN]

Originally posted by: lozina
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html</a>]http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html[/L][/L]

Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks to force a Penguin publisher, Dutton books, to rename the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." It also asks for unspecified damages.

You gotta be kidding me... is that a little extreme? Am I the only one who finds it deeply disturbing that someone can trademark something as general as the statement 'fair and balanced' and sue anyone who uses it? Maybe I can trademark 'Hi' and sue anyone using my word.

Hi (how much will that be?).

I'm shocked that a right wing organization like FOX would be in such a rush for litigation. Isn't being over litiguous one of the big complaints form the right?

Seems they are the only ones who want access to the courts for redress.

 

[BarneyFife]

I'm sick of the left. They tie up our courts with useless lawsuits.

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

What do the lawyers think . . . or those that pretend they are lawyers? Besides the fact "Fair and Balanced" is a lie can FOX really argue that any use of "Fair and Balanced" infringes on their trademark fantasy? Would a judge weigh such concerns over the clear threat FOX likely perceives in being criticized and having one of their boys - O'Reilly - on the cover . . . which is likely the real reason they are suing.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm sick of the left. They tie up our courts with useless lawsuits.

I'm sick of the right. I belive I'll sue them because they think different than me.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Haha, Fox is gonna lose this one.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: lozina
<a target=new class=ftalternatingbarlinklarge href="http://
[L=http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html">http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html</a>]http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/foxnews.lawsuit.ap/index.html[/L][/L]

Filed Monday in Manhattan, the trademark infringement lawsuit seeks to force a Penguin publisher, Dutton books, to rename the book, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right." It also asks for unspecified damages.

You gotta be kidding me... is that a little extreme? Am I the only one who finds it deeply disturbing that someone can trademark something as general as the statement 'fair and balanced' and sue anyone who uses it? Maybe I can trademark 'Hi' and sue anyone using my word.

It has gotten far beyond insane.

I looked at that Book Cover

"A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right"

It's not even close the Fox TradeMark.

They should not have been able to TradeMark "Fair and Balanced" (TradeMark of Fox News) soon every word and words put together will be "TradeMarked".

Please do go ahead and TradeMark "Hi" and make a few million instantly just be nice and remember your friends here

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
I'm sick of the left. They tie up our courts with useless lawsuits.

That, Fife, is the only logical thing I have seen you post...ever. Keep up the good work, Fifer.

 

[SuperTool]

Faux News will lose. Fair use. Their lawyers know they got no case, but hope to intimidate Franken with legal costs.

 

[DealMonkey]

Not to mention parody. Franken's book most definitely falls under parody exemptions.

 

[DealMonkey]

I especially liked this part: Dutton spokeswoman Lisa Johnson accused Fox News' parent company, News Corp., of trying to suppress the book, which is due out next month. "The attempt to keep the public from reading Franken's message is un-American," she said.

 

[dexvx]

There should be a civil suit against Fox for misadvertising... Fair and Balanced... HAH

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: dexvx
There should be a civil suit against Fox for misadvertising... Fair and Balanced... HAH

It's a shame, they were doing well (as far as viewership and popularity) but this kind of publicity stunt and stupidity is sure to derail their sucess.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

Originally posted by: dmcowen674

Originally posted by: dexvx
There should be a civil suit against Fox for misadvertising... Fair and Balanced... HAH

It's a shame, they were doing well (as far as viewership and popularity) but this kind of publicity stunt and stupidity is sure to derail their sucess.

wishful thinking

 

[da loser]

how do normal spoofs work? or do companies choose to not sue? how does south park get away with the stuff they do?

i think it's obvious franken chose those words because of fox news, whether you can sue for that i have no idea. or does someone actually think he chose those words for other reasons. he's got oreilly on the cover, talking about right wing, talking about right wing commentary->fox news.

second, most spoofs are comedic, i think his book is more political commentary based on facts.

it's obvious his book will harm fox, but if he doesn't lie then i don't think they have a case. what would happen if the publisher put a line through those words...

cnn fixed your link

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: da loser
it's obvious his book will harm fox, but if he doesn't lie then i don't think they have a case. what would happen if the publisher put a line through those words...

Really? It's obvious the book will harm Fox? How?

 

[Corn]

Fair use.

Absolutely clueless. Oh, I agree that Fox might lose, but not because of "fair use". Franken isn't using Fox's copyrighted slogan for his own personal, non-commercial use.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Fox WILL lose, and I will be very suprised if their trademark doesn't get revoked either during or soon afterwards. Lots of things get trademarked and patented that shouldn't, but usually nothing is done about them until court cases start popping up. Remember the guy that got a patent for swings? It was a mistake for Fox to bring this suit, and they're going to get bitten in the ass by it.

 

[Thump553]

New Fox News slogan: "Frivilous claims-they're not just for left wing losers anymore!"

Actually this is just one more sad example of big money interests using the legal system for intimidation. And since it is the public (you and I) that pay the court expenses, and not the litigants, it is just one more example of corporate welfare. But I doubt Fox News is intellectually honest enough to admit it.

 

[Corn]

It was a mistake for Fox to bring this suit, and they're going to get bitten in the ass by it.

Why is it a mistake? Because they might lose? What's the point of holding a copyright or trademark if you don't try to protect it?

 

[Corn]

But I doubt Fox News is intellectually honest enough to admit it.

No doubt about that.

 

[Gonad the Barbarian]

Originally posted by: Corn

It was a mistake for Fox to bring this suit, and they're going to get bitten in the ass by it.

Why is it a mistake? Because they might lose? What's the point of holding a copyright or trademark if you don't try to protect it?

Franken I'm sure will challenge the validity of the trademark, and I don't see how it wouldn't be revoked. Not only is it a phrase that had common usage before they trademarked it, you can make a damn good argument that it is misleading and not indicitave of what it is supposed to be representing. Both can be grounds for trademark revocation.

 

[SuperTool]

Fox has a lot to lose and very little to gain. At the most, he'll change it to balanaced and fair. But that is after milking this for all the publicity he can get. Faux is playing straight into Franken's hands.
At worst, Faux can lose its trademark on a challenge, whereby a court will officially rule that Faux cannot use fair and balanced as a trademark, which will damage Fox brand, because now a judgement will be on record against their "Fair and Balanced" lie.
Additionaly, if Fox loses, and even if they don't lose the trademark, they'll be seen as unfairly trying to suppress free speech and fair use.
So upside for Fox is very small, but downside is very large. There is almost no chance they'll win this case, and even if they do, Franken will gain more from the free publicity for his book than he will lose by altering the title and the cover.
If Fox loses, they can lose the fair and balanced trademark that it took them years to build up. It's very easy to trademark and patent things, but it doesn't mean that you'll be able to defend those on a challenge. Especially for common phrases like fair and balanced, there will be a lot of prior art where they are used.

 

[JellyBaby]

SuperTool, yep. Very dumb move by FOX. In the end they may lose their trademark and actually make Frankin rich (all this free publicity for his book courtesy of FOX).

A news corporation chanting the slogan "fair and balanced" but doesn't live up to that ideal only hurts its rep. and compromises its mindshare.