Fox sues Franken over 'fair and balanced'

[Corn]

Missing the point fellas.

A trademark/copyright is only a protection against someone else profiting from the trademark or copyrighted material. Fox loses nothing if the trademark is revoked--simply because if they chose not to defend their trademark when someone else uses it for their profit at Fox's detriment, what the hell is the sense of having the trademark?

If the trademark is revoked, that doesn't mean that Fox can't use "fair and balanced" in their slogan, it simply means that anyone else could---and in this case, someone else already did.

 

[sandorski]

He probably didn't need it, but Franken just got a whole bunch of free advertising over this. I'm sure he'll thank Fox News when his book becomes a best seller.

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Corn
Missing the point fellas.

A trademark/copyright is only a protection against someone else profiting from the trademark or copyrighted material. Fox loses nothing if the trademark is revoked--simply because if they chose not to defend their trademark when someone else uses it for their profit at Fox's detriment, what the hell is the sense of having the trademark?

If the trademark is revoked, that doesn't mean that Fox can't use "fair and balanced" in their slogan, it simply means that anyone else could---and in this case, someone else already did.

Hey, if they want to bring it on themselves, they are free to do so. They could let this pass under fair use, and preserve their trademark unchallenged. So maybe critics like Franken can use it in their books, but their competition won't because they don't want a court fight. Instead they are going for all or nothing, and chances are they'll be left with nothing. Then everyone will be able to use it, and take advantage of all the time Fox spent building it up as their trademark.
Franken will most certainly win under fair use, and revoking the trademark is a very possible bonus. Fox has a small chance of winning on fair use, but to find out, they have to risk losing their trademark. Normally Fox would be able to intimidated someone into settling this, but the free publicity they are offering Franken is too good to turn down, so I think he'll fight it.

 

[SuperTool]

http://1.junglescan.com/scan/details.php?asin=0525947647&days=7
Looks like Franken's book is up from 489 to 4 in Amazon.com rankings since the news of this lawsuit broke.
Fox is playing right into Franken's hands.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Corn
Missing the point fellas.

A trademark/copyright is only a protection against someone else profiting from the trademark or copyrighted material. Fox loses nothing if the trademark is revoked--simply because if they chose not to defend their trademark when someone else uses it for their profit at Fox's detriment, what the hell is the sense of having the trademark?

If the trademark is revoked, that doesn't mean that Fox can't use "fair and balanced" in their slogan, it simply means that anyone else could---and in this case, someone else already did.

So, the title of the book is now a "slogan"? Hardly. Besides there's no possibility of confusion between Franken's book and the Network. I think Fox, and yourself, are making too big of a stink over this...

 

[friedpie]

I think Corn makes a good point about having a trademark, but not defending it.

At first I thought the lawsuit was silly, until I heard about the trademark. Now I think Franken, who I readily admit I can't stand, is using the phrase to sell his book.

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: friedpie
Now I think Franken, who I readily admit I can't stand, is using the phrase to sell his book.

That's irrelevant. The title is parody.

Besides, from what I've heard, their copyright protects them from another news organization using it. The example they gave on CNN was it's not illegal to call a TV show "Good and Plenty," even though it's trademarked.

 

[Pepsei]

Now I have to buy this book just to see what it is about....

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: Pepsei
Now I have to buy this book just to see what it is about....

Exactly why this was a bad idea for Fox...even if they win.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Corn
Missing the point fellas.

A trademark/copyright is only a protection against someone else profiting from the trademark or copyrighted material. Fox loses nothing if the trademark is revoked--simply because if they chose not to defend their trademark when someone else uses it for their profit at Fox's detriment, what the hell is the sense of having the trademark?

If the trademark is revoked, that doesn't mean that Fox can't use "fair and balanced" in their slogan, it simply means that anyone else could---and in this case, someone else already did.

While this is true, consider the before and after.

Before- A company/person MIGHT have been reluctant to use that phrase, certainly in the instance of it being connected with something Fox really, really did not want, more than Frankins little ditty.

After- The loss of the suit and revoking any claimed rights could result in a porno flick called "Fair and Balanced- Blond gymnasts doing IT". Fox couldn't even begin to file a claim.

 

[friedpie]

Originally posted by: BDawgBesides, from what I've heard, their copyright protects them from another news organization using it. The example they gave on CNN was it's not illegal to call a TV show "Good and Plenty," even though it's trademarked.

Well, if what you say is true why have there not been any shows with trademarked names?

 

[BDawg]

Originally posted by: friedpie

Originally posted by: BDawgBesides, from what I've heard, their copyright protects them from another news organization using it. The example they gave on CNN was it's not illegal to call a TV show "Good and Plenty," even though it's trademarked.

Well, if what you say is true why have there not been any shows with trademarked names?

Who says there haven't been shows with trademarked names?

Trademarks exist to prevent unfair competition, generally within the same product field.

 

[da loser]

Originally posted by: 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?

the book is meant to harm fox and make money for franken. it will harm fox if it keeps viewers away, just like the liberal media bias book keeps people away from cnn. the only way it helps fox is by further polarizing people towards fox away from franken. the chances of someone reading a book meant to convince people to agree with franken to get pissed at him is small, unless the book is written poorly. the only people that haven't made up their minds on fox are probably younger viewers, not so with cnn. franken will appeal to those viewers to reject fox.

if you don't think this book will harm fox, i'd like to know how you think it would help fox.

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: 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?

the book is meant to harm fox and make money for franken. it will harm fox if it keeps viewers away, just like the liberal media bias book keeps people away from cnn. the only way it helps fox is by further polarizing people towards fox away from franken. the chances of someone reading a book meant to convince people to agree with franken to get pissed at him is small, unless the book is written poorly. the only people that haven't made up their minds on fox are probably younger viewers, not so with cnn. franken will appeal to those viewers to reject fox.

if you don't think this book will harm fox, i'd like to know how you think it would help fox.

I think it will neither harm nor help Fox. Here's an interesting explainer concerning trademarks:

Slate.com - can you trademark the phrase "Let's Roll"?

A trademark does not mean, however, that no one else can use your word, phrase, or symbol in connection with any and all goods and services. It means only that somebody else can't use a similar trademark with similar goods or services. The key criterion: trademark infringement occurs when someone else's use of a trademark would likely cause confusion about the source of goods or services. Avon, for example, has trademarked "Let's talk" for a variety of commercial uses, including door-to-door retail merchandising. But that hasn't stopped another company from trademarking "Let's talk" for use with voice-activated computer software, because consumers are unlikely to get confused and believe that Avon is pitching software, or that a software company is hawking lipsticks.

In the Fox case, no one is likely to confuse a book title for the News Network. If another news network or TV show were to try and use "Fair and Balanced" there might be some basis for infringement...

 

[Martin]

Originally posted by: SuperTool
http://1.junglescan.com/scan/details.php?asin=0525947647&days=7
Looks like Franken's book is up from 489 to 4 in Amazon.com rankings since the news of this lawsuit broke.
Fox is playing right into Franken's hands.

I am shocked and awe....wait, no.

I am dazed and confuse...no..no..

I am...counfounded and befuddled!?

Yes....and if anyone dares to use "confounded and befuddled?"....you better watch out :|!

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: da loser

Originally posted by: 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?

the book is meant to harm fox and make money for franken. it will harm fox if it keeps viewers away, just like the liberal media bias book keeps people away from cnn. the only way it helps fox is by further polarizing people towards fox away from franken. the chances of someone reading a book meant to convince people to agree with franken to get pissed at him is small, unless the book is written poorly. the only people that haven't made up their minds on fox are probably younger viewers, not so with cnn. franken will appeal to those viewers to reject fox.

if you don't think this book will harm fox, i'd like to know how you think it would help fox.

I think it will neither harm nor help Fox. Here's an interesting explainer concerning trademarks:

Slate.com - can you trademark the phrase "Let's Roll"?

A trademark does not mean, however, that no one else can use your word, phrase, or symbol in connection with any and all goods and services. It means only that somebody else can't use a similar trademark with similar goods or services. The key criterion: trademark infringement occurs when someone else's use of a trademark would likely cause confusion about the source of goods or services. Avon, for example, has trademarked "Let's talk" for a variety of commercial uses, including door-to-door retail merchandising. But that hasn't stopped another company from trademarking "Let's talk" for use with voice-activated computer software, because consumers are unlikely to get confused and believe that Avon is pitching software, or that a software company is hawking lipsticks.

In the Fox case, no one is likely to confuse a book title for the News Network. If another news network or TV show were to try and use "Fair and Balanced" there might be some basis for infringement...

From USPTO: (search for fox and fair under trademark search)

Word Mark FAIR & BALANCED
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs. FIRST USE: 19961007. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19961007
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75280027
Filing Date April 23, 1997
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition March 3, 1998
Registration Number 2213427
Registration Date December 22, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Fox News Network, LLC CORPORATION DELAWARE 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York NEW YORK 10036
Attorney of Record DAPHNE GRONICH
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

Looks like fox is in "entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs" and Franken is in book writing business.
Apples and oranges. But as I mentioned in the OT thread, even worse for Fox, "fair and balanced" was in common lexicon well before they trademarked it,
and was used in speeches by presidents Bush1, Reagan, and Carter as early as 1978.
http://bushlibrary.tamu.edu/papers/1989/89053104.html
http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/resource/speeches/1984/31584d.htm
http://www.polsci.ucsb.edu/projects/presproject/idgrant/sou_pages/carter1su.html
They could lose the trademark alltogether.

 

[BDawg]

Lies and the Lying Liers who Tell Them is now the #1 seller at Amazon, outselling the new Tom Clancy book. WTG, Fox!

 

[lozina]

An updated article on CNN: http://www.cnn.com/2003/SHOWBIZ/books/08/12/media.fox.reut/index.html

"From everything I know about law regarding satire, I'm not worried," liberal satirist Franken said in a statement issued by publishers Penguin Group.

"As far as the personal attacks go, when I read 'intoxicated or deranged' and 'shrill and unstable' in their complaint, I thought for a moment I was a Fox commentator.

"And by the way, a few months ago, I trademarked the word 'funny.' So when Fox calls me 'unfunny,' they're violating my trademark. I am seriously considering a countersuit," he said.

This is great... Franken sitting back watching his book sales shoot through the roof off of free advertising courtesy of Fox, and Fox is left looking like a bunch of clowns.

 

[Corn]

...Fox is left looking like a bunch of clowns.

Why should today be different than any other day?

 

[zephyrprime]

Well now the books is the number one best seller on Amazon. (Some people have already said this but I'll say it again). Way to shoot yourself in the foot Fox!

 

[DealMonkey]

Only Fox News could throw a bunch of personal attacks into a legal complaint:

Fox said in the suit that Franken flew into a rage near a table of Fox News personalities at a press correspondents' dinner in April and acted "either intoxicated or deranged."

It said Franken has become "increasingly unfunny."

"Franken is neither a journalist nor a television news personality. He is not a well-respected voice in American politics; rather, he appears to be shrill and unstable," the suit said.

And I wondered where some of the idiots in this forum learned that. I'm wondering no longer...

 

[Tom]

Originally posted by: 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.

Satire is also fair use, isn't it, and he surely is using it for that purpose.

 

[Red Dawn]

Thanks to O'Riely and Faux News, Franken's Career has risen from the dead. After he left SNL his career seemed to be floundering with only occasional appearances on the Conan O'Brien Show who, BTW, if a close friend and a former SNL Alumni.

Franken should thank his lucky stars that the Ultra Right can't handle critisism..even if it's from an insignificant individual like Franken

 

[SuperTool]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Thanks to O'Riely and Faux News, Franken's Career has risen from the dead. After he left SNL his career seemed to be floundering with only occasional appearances on the Conan O'Brien Show who, BTW, if a close friend and a former SNL Alumni.

Franken should thank his lucky stars that the Ultra Right can't handle critisism..even if it's from an insignificant individual like Franken

I think he was pushing O'Reilly's buttons for this exact reason.

 

[dmcowen674]

Hey folks, looks like Fox has dropped the "Fair and Balanced" from their screen graphics, anyone seen that the last few days?

The amazing power of public feedback.