Fox Sues Al Franken!
Weird.
Fox objects to Franken's use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Fox is suing for copyright or trademark infringement. The New York Times, in To Fox, 'Fair and Balanced' Doesn't Describe Franken, puts the lawsuit in, IMO, its deserved context:
Apparently, trademark litigation lawsuits are usually "mundane," but legalese wasn't fair and balanced enough for Fox. So, of course, they personally attacked Franken in the suit! He's "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
Well, Newsweek called his book "wickedly funny." The New York Times called it "funny, angry, and intelligent." I'm not sure what to think here. Usually Fox News tells me what to think and tells me what's "fair and balanced."
I'll have to go with Fox on this one. Al Franken, your definition of 'fair and balanced' does not match mine; therefore I, as a large corporation, am suing you, an individual, for satirizing the company's deathly serious (and truthful!) slogan.
So what is this?
Trademark infringement?
Free Speech?
A large corporation suing an openly critical individual because they can?
Fox wants an injunction against the book.
Fox objects to Franken's use of the words "Fair and Balanced" in the title of his book, "Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right". Fox is suing for copyright or trademark infringement. The New York Times, in To Fox, 'Fair and Balanced' Doesn't Describe Franken, puts the lawsuit in, IMO, its deserved context:
Quote:
In the lawsuit, a judge is being asked to decide an important question: who has the right to use the word "fair" and the word "balanced" together, connected by the word "and"?
In the lawsuit, a judge is being asked to decide an important question: who has the right to use the word "fair" and the word "balanced" together, connected by the word "and"?
Apparently, trademark litigation lawsuits are usually "mundane," but legalese wasn't fair and balanced enough for Fox. So, of course, they personally attacked Franken in the suit! He's "not a well-respected voice in American politics, his views appear shrill or unstable, and he lacks any serious depth or insight."
Well, Newsweek called his book "wickedly funny." The New York Times called it "funny, angry, and intelligent." I'm not sure what to think here. Usually Fox News tells me what to think and tells me what's "fair and balanced."
I'll have to go with Fox on this one. Al Franken, your definition of 'fair and balanced' does not match mine; therefore I, as a large corporation, am suing you, an individual, for satirizing the company's deathly serious (and truthful!) slogan.
So what is this?
Trademark infringement?
Free Speech?
A large corporation suing an openly critical individual because they can?
Fox wants an injunction against the book.
Comments
The above paragraph is protected as satire.
How ironic. Media assholes.
Originally posted by Alex London
What a bunch of wankers, it's bad enough having News Corp. papers over here, thankfully we don't have Fox news.
What is the Sky news reportage like? I know BSkyB is 40% owned by News Corp, but I've heard stories about Murdoch complaining that Sky news is too liberal.
Originally posted by kneelbeforezod
What is the Sky news reportage like? I know BSkyB is 40% owned by News Corp, but I've heard stories about Murdoch complaining that Sky news is too liberal.
Currently pretty fair and balanced (cough).
Not a bad network, although BBC News kicks it up and down.
NOW: the Murdoch newspapers, they really are foul. They are staggeringly anti-Europe for no good reason ... an ex-Ozzie US citizen telling Brits how bad Europe is ...
a motion to dismiss.
Rupert Murdoch is a dangerous man.
Thoth
I suspect there's a 0% chance that this gets past
a motion to dismiss.
And what experience do you have that causes you to believe this? It's very likely that Fox will win. It is this very reason that the United States has intellectual property laws protecting trademarks of individuals or corporations.
Whether you like Fox or not, that's no excuse for attempting profit off of their brand.
It's exactly like the guy who attempted to name his store, "Victor's Secret." He was compelled to change the name because it infringed on the trademark rights of Victoria's Secret.
Does anyone here really think that Franken would have used that in his title if it wasn't the slogan of the network news company he crusades against?
Originally posted by OBJRA10
And what experience do you have that causes you to believe this? It's very likely that Fox will win. It is this very reason that the United States has intellectual property laws protecting trademarks of individuals or corporations.
Whether you like Fox or not, that's no excuse for attempting profit off of their brand.
It's exactly like the guy who attempted to name his store, "Victor's Secret." He was compelled to change the name because it infringed on the trademark rights of Victoria's Secret.
Does anyone here really think that Franken would have used that in his title if it wasn't the slogan of the network news company he crusades against?
Wrong. He changed the name after being threatened with the lawsuit. After it worked its way through the courts he won at the Supreme Court level.
http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwash...on/5314281.htm
This reminds me of McDonalds trying to sue people with Mc-whatever, as if they invented or owned the Mac prefix. This gives evil corporations a bad name.
Originally posted by OBJRA10
And what experience do you have that causes you to believe this? It's very likely that Fox will win. It is this very reason that the United States has intellectual property laws protecting trademarks of individuals or corporations.
Whether you like Fox or not, that's no excuse for attempting profit off of their brand.
It's exactly like the guy who attempted to name his store, "Victor's Secret." He was compelled to change the name because it infringed on the trademark rights of Victoria's Secret.
Does anyone here really think that Franken would have used that in his title if it wasn't the slogan of the network news company he crusades against?
You seem to forget that the higher courts ruled that he could keep the original name.
"The court in that case was saying, even though they may have a famous mark, Victoria's Secret, and may have a particular association as soon as you hear it, Victor's Secret was not enough--the confusion or potential damage to their mark--to constitute infringement," Wood said.
http://www.crn.com/sections/Breaking...rticleID=43616
Yes, let's try using the truth in your arguments from now on. I know it's difficult when you are trying to put drug addicts in prison but please at least make an attempt.
Scarborough is a tool.
You seem to forget that the higher courts ruled that he could keep the original name.
Actually, no, the court ruled the case remanded for further proceedings based on the decision that the new name
"Victor's Little Secret"
didn't dilute the value of Victoria's Secret. He could keep that name, for now... but not the original
I know it's difficult when you are trying to put drug addicts in prison but please at least make an attempt.
what does that mean? First of all, I don't do drug cases. Secondly - so what. Using drugs happens to still be illegal in this country.
Originally posted by OBJRA10 Whether you like Fox or not, that's no excuse for attempting profit off of their brand.[/B]
Ever hear of statutory fair use?
As per § 33(b)(4) of the Lanham Act:
defense to a claim of trademark infringement exists where the use of the name, term, or device charged to be an infringement is a use, otherwise than as a mark...of a term or device which is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe the goods or services of such party, or their geographic origin.
I would have thought you'd have learned about this kind of stuff in law school (they do require 'federal prosecutors' to go to law school, don't they?).
If you knew what you were talking about, it would be worth talking to you. You don't, and it isn't.
I have a friend studying intellectual property law and such...I'll have to ask him what he thinks. My understadning of it is that Franken can;t use that phrase for promotion of a commodity....in this case, a book.
The suit is valid, but I did find the commentary in the suit a bit odd. Don't get me wrong, I think Franken is borderline insane, but to say so in a legal document? I don't know. It might actually hurt the case because if the defense can prove that no reasonable person would take him seriously, it may may get thrown out.
BTW, Franken has had his share of wack job moments. Apparently, he flipped out in public at a table of Fox journalists...using the F Bomb several times and what not. It was so bad they thought it was a gag....but it wasn't.