Eh, yes and no. It kind of depends on the nature of the product, and there are also issues of misdescriptiveness. Philadelphia Cream Cheese might, at one point, have been an example of misdescriptiveness if the story you cite above is accurate (and no reason Kraft would lie about it). Geographic terms are an interesting conundrum, and actually one of the fertile areas in international trade disputes. French winemaking interests, for example, have strenuously lobbied with varying degrees of success that terms like “champagne” and “chardonnay” can only be used in connection with French products, and have been among the strongest lobbying for greater protection of these terms. The NAFTA agreement also did some funky things to geographic terms by making geographically misdescriptive terms unregisterable unless they had acquired distinctiveness prior to the effective date of NAFTA.
But, back to the story. In the case of well-known place names (like “Philadelphia”) there is a presumption that if you use the name, it’s either descriptive of the origin of the product (if it comes from there) or misdescriptive of the origin of the product (if it does not). The idea being that well-known places are well-known and would be perceived first and initially as an indication of the geographic source of the product, rather than a particular merchant’s product.
So it doesn’t make the trademark any more distinctive if the place and product are unconnected. In fact, if they are, it can be as absolute a bar to legal protection as genericness.
That’s just the tip of the iceberg – if we’d gotten trademark law into place a few centuries earlier, literally millions of words could be properly owned as God intended, rather than having to float around the common domain being mouthed by any grubby-tongued commoner who takes a notion to do so. Pants, hat, dog, cuticle, foliage, prostate, pipe, mild humidity, iron, short circuit, earlobe, abbreviate, jumping bean, fungus, etc. The list goes on and on.
The booming book sales may be as much a reflection of widespread antipathy toward Fox News as it is for Franken’s popularity. There are a lot of people who believe that the mainstream news media are not “fair and balanced” at all, but ideologically biased toward the left or right. Among those who perceive a conservative bias, Fox is usually cited as the worst offender.
Oh, this is a happy day. CNN is reporting that Fox’s motion for an injunction was denied.
And to those who said that I was a “chump” who didn’t know what I was talking about when it came to trademark law, may I just say NEENER, with a healthy dollop of “You are a :wally .”
“There are hard cases and there are easy cases,” the judge said. “This is an easy case. This case is wholly without merit, both factually and legally.”
You said a mouthful, Giraffe! (But, please, haul the tongue back in now.) Just think how hard poor put-upon Ralph Lauren had to fight to win control over “POLO”. To take it away from that silly magazine being published by the governing body for the sport of polo in this country. What nerve!
Well, just to be "Fair and Balanced"TM (So, sue me, Fox), that wasn’t Fox’s take on it at all. It just ran the Associated Press story everybody else will run. Guess they couldn’t trust themselves to present a "Fair and Balanced"TM account of the judge’s decision.
[hijack]Kudos to the AP reporter who included the information about Al “Grandpa Munster” Lewis.[/hijack]
Franken is clearly baiting Fox News and the conservatives. Amazing how they go for the sparkly lure every time. Good for Franken, but also kind of like going hunting at the zoo.
