How far does a trademark extend? What evidence would Fox need in order to prove that Franken’s title makes use of their trademarked slogan? Is it a defence that Franken used the word “and” rather than the trademarked ampersand, “&”? How much damages could Fox News hope to collect?
The US patent and trademark office record on Fair & Balanced gives a filing date of April 23, 1997, and a registration date of December 22, 1998. The trademark covers “entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs.” (from the link’s status info)
But in this case, I think he’s got an excellent chance of winning. I’m no expert in IP law, but the standard I recall was likelihood of confusion. No one will mistake Franken’s book for “…entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs.”
Rick
According to the title of a book written in response to “Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot”
Are they? It’s hard to tell without reading the book, but if I were to judge just from the title, I would assume the book was about right wing liars in general, not Fox News in particular. However, if the shoe fits…
IANAL, but as and the son of an IP lawyer and an interested observer of IP issues, – Fox doesn’t have a leg to stand on. No (honest) judge in the world would permit a suit such as this to go forward.
This is a slapp suit intended to harrass Franken, nothing less.
He should have taken out a trademark on “Fox News v. Al Franken”. Then when they sued, he could have countersue for violating his trademark. Quick, let’s trademark the phrase “homsexual agenda”! Then we can sue right wingers every time they use it.
Exactly! Whatever numbskull at Fox greenlighted this lawsuit couldn’t possibly have played more into Franken’s hands – I’m sure Al is delighted at this turn of events.
Question: will Franken countersue Fox for fraudulent advertising? To what extents can we use the courts as part of a book tour? Can you only use them if someone else initiates the case?
Not that I’d know for sure one way or another, but on the face of it this sounds as phony as a pro wrestling bout. IANAL either, but the supposed justification for the suit seems ridiculous, and I find it hard to believe that Fox’s legal types would take this to court just because O’Reilly has beef with Franken, as has been suggested in the stories I’ve read.
Lotsa entertaining theatre to come, at least until the whole thing dries up and blows away.
I think FOX is kidding, and maybe trying to scare Franken’s publisher.
So they’re arguing people will buy a book by Al Franken thinking that it’s from FOX. Yeah, right. By that logic, people should’ve thought “Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot” was an autobiography. Anybody buying a book by Franken will buy it for what it is, and take “fair and balanced” in the sense he’s using it: as a parody.
All I know is that I can’t wait until Al’s book comes out and Bill O’Reilly rakes him over the coals. Franken, while a brilliant comic back in the day, or more or less a blowhard.
Fox shouldn’t have ignored it. I probably never would have heard of the book in the first place if Fox hadn’t sued. And I agree that Franken will probably win.
Of course Fox News is anything but F&B and this lawsuit will help call attention to that fact, and perhaps be symbolic of the attitude of the Right in general. It’s iroonic that the one thing FN won’t have to prove is that they actually are what their trademark claims them to be.
Photopat:
You’d be suprised. Recently a Mexican fast-food chain (Taco John’s IIRC) successfully stopped a small neighborhood bar from advertising “Taco Tuesdays” because they had it trademarked. And the bar couldn’t change it to “Tacos on Tuesday” because that was “too similar”.