User loginNavigationLive Discussions
Most popular threads
For entertainment onlyBlog linksA Skeptical Blog NathanNewman.org Tech Notes |
We recommendGoogle searchTip jarDropping KnowledgeLibrary of Congress African American Odyssey Link CollectionsNews sourcesOn CultureReality checksThe Public LibraryWho's new
Who's onlineThere are currently 1 user and 149 guests online.
Online users:
...Syndicate |
I think they're serious!Fox Suesby Prometheus 6
August 12, 2003 - 12:58pm. on Old Site Archive I think they're serious! Fox Sues Humorist Al Franken Over 'fair and Balanced' Slogan
The Associated Press NEW YORK (AP) - Fox News Channel has sued liberal humorist Al Franken and the Penguin Group to stop them from using the phrase "fair and balanced" in the title of his upcoming book. Fox News registered "Fair & Balanced" as a trademark in 1995, the suit says. Franken's "intent is clear - to exploit Fox News' trademark, confuse the public as to the origins of the book and, accordingly, boost sales of the book," the suit said. Fox's trademark is "Fair & Balanced" with an ampersand. Franken is using "fair and balanced" in a sentance. There is no chance anyone will be confused as to the origin of the book. And seriously, if including a trademark in the title of a book is actionable, Enron would be able to sue for enough money to stay in business. I looked up "fair" and (not "&", mind you…don't want to get sued&hellip) "balanced" using Encarta 2002, and got the following list of adjectives: balanced adj It is significant that, by definition 13 of "fair" and definition 2 of "balanced", their trademark is a true statement. LATER: Eugene Volokh (who I was never annoyed at, it was that one post by Tyler Cowen that dissapointed me) says: I suppose that the criticisms of Franken are in some measure to the tarnishment theory -- but they still make the complaint sound like a snit fit. Also, the tarnishment theory is in any event very weak: 15 U.S.C. sec. 1125(c), which discusses "trademark dilution" (the legal rubric under which tarnishment claims generally fall) specifically exempt "All forms of news reporting and news commentary" as well as "Fair use of a famous mark by another person in comparative commercial advertising or promotion to identify the competing goods or services of the owner of the famous mark." First, Franken's book is news commentary. Second, the more that Fox argues that Franken is referring to it, and unfairly competing with it, the more Franken would be able to claim that he is therefore engaging in "comparative . . . promotion" that identifies his work as an alternative source of commentary to Fox. (Thanks to reader Jason Walta for pointing me to the New York Times article.)
Well, that about wraps it up as far as I'm concerned. Except for the free publicity, of course. And what ever happened to Savage Weiner's case? |