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.
I'll devote very little time to this response.
My experience is this: I am a communications lawyer who does an awful lot of work with First Amendment issues. Formerly, I worked in IP.
Your statement that he's attempting to "profit" off their
trademark and hence violating their trademark is question begging. "Profit" is only one factor that informs the Fair Use analysis.
SDW defending Fox. Gee. Who would ever have predicted this?
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
chu-bakka:
Quote:
ere's a good interview with Al before the lawsuit.
Basically he's just calling out the right-wingers on their shoddy fact checking and creative editing. And they can't handle it.
Oh, is that all? Thanks.
dstranathan:
Quote:
I saw the C-Span show live with Al and O'Reilly on an author panel a couple months ago. Franken previewed the book for the first time (with a live audience too) and O'Reilly totally flipped-out. It became a WWF cage match for a while. Fun to watch...
Perhaps you missed what happened in April when Franken went totally "flippo" at the correspondants dinner.
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
Finally, it's important to realize that Franken is truly nuts. What Fox says about him in the suit is correct (though I doubt they should have said it). Franken has no shame, that's for sure. I think he's hilarious, but...wow.
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
No, that's not the point, at least not the entire point. As I stated above, profit is only one factor in the analysis. Franken is not branding a taco he sells "Taco Bell", thus directly trading on the name of a competitor. He is not intending to "confuse" or "dilute" someone's trademark. There is very little likelihood of confusion where the title of the book includes "the lying liers who tell them," in conjunction with an obviously ironic, even sarcastic, use of a trademarked phrase. I suspect that you would agree that no one who is acquainted with the "fair and balanced" trademark would think that Al Franken's book was a product of Fox News? That's the kind of confusion Trademark law prevents.
Would you say that a book title not written by Al Franken or some other liberal wonk entitled "Fair and Balanced: Does Fox News Practice What They Preach?" would be prohibited by the Trademark laws?
Trademarks are limited monopolies that are strongly circumscribed by the First Amendment, especially in areas of political and public interest, such as we have here.
You may not like Al Franken, but Fox's suit has zero merit.
Maybe Fox News should sue Franken for false advertising if the book isn't Fair and Balanced . . . Oh wait, Fox would be bankrupt if some one sued them back for their claims.
O'Reilly tried to bash Franken last night but he didn't mention his name or the book only alluded to it at the top of the broadcast. Pretty cowardly method of attack but I guess the lawyers at Fox didn't want O'Reilly to get sued for libel.
O'Reilly and Franken need to have debate/contest to see who is the most Fair and Balanced. Who ever looses must relinquish their claim.
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
That Franken's selling something using the trademarked phrase is far, far from enough to cause him to lose the case. Protection for a trademark such as "fair and balanced" is especially weak since it's such an ordinary commonplace phrase. The more ordinary the trademark is, the more restricted the contexts in which the right to the trademark can be protected.
Franken is clearly not attempting to represent his book as a product of Fox News by using the phrase. There is little chance of a consumer becoming confused into believing he's purchasing a Fox product when buying Franken's book.
Franken is clearly not attempting to bask in any legitimacy (real or imagined) that Fox News has by using their trademarked phrase. Quite to the contrary, Franken is making a fairly obvious satirical attack against Fox's legitimacy. Turning a person's (or an organization's) own words against them has long standing as a common rhetorical device, and most certainly is protected free speech.
The only thing giving me the slightest doubt of Franken's victory in this case is my cynical feeling that the American justice system often devolves into a contest of who can spend the most on expensive lawyers and campaign contributions to political allies of the judges involved.
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
I was in no way trying to discredit your argument. I just was "audibly" expressing my sheer amazement that you would ever defend anything said or done by Fox Corporation. Please understand that my statement did not contain one iota of sarcasm. I am truly baffled by how fair and balanced you are in defending Fox Corporation as well as Fox News Channel.
No, that's not the point, at least not the entire point. As I stated above, profit is only one factor in the analysis. Franken is not branding a taco he sells "Taco Bell", thus directly trading on the name of a competitor. He is not intending to "confuse" or "dilute" someone's trademark. There is very little likelihood of confusion where the title of the book includes "the lying liers who tell them," in conjunction with an obviously ironic, even sarcastic, use of a trademarked phrase. I suspect that you would agree that no one who is acquainted with the "fair and balanced" trademark would think that Al Franken's book was a product of Fox News? That's the kind of confusion Trademark law prevents.
Would you say that a book title not written by Al Franken or some other liberal wonk entitled "Fair and Balanced: Does Fox News Practice What They Preach?" would be prohibited by the Trademark laws?
Trademarks are limited monopolies that are strongly circumscribed by the First Amendment, especially in areas of political and public interest, such as we have here.
You may not like Al Franken, but Fox's suit has zero merit.
I am just amazed by the statements I am reading here. It's like some of you live on another planet.
Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.
Typically, the more famous a trademark, the greater the risk that the public could be so confused," explains intellectual property attorney Thomas O'Rourke. "Although there are a number of factors that need to be considered in making this determination, one that will be very relevant is whether the book is perceived as "riding on the coattails" of the mark. If a mark is well known and the book title is using the fame of the mark to boost the marketability of the book, then there will probably be infringement. If the mark is not famous or well known and the subject of the book has nothing to do with the goods or services that the mark is used with, then there is probably little risk of trademark infringement."_
(emphasis added)
This isn't about Fox or anyone's politics. It's about a clear attempt to piggyback on their phrase.
Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.
I am totally amazed about your mistrust in the american educational level.
"Wow. So if I buy this book I can actually see FoxNews? I didn´t know they had started to put TV sets in books now"
Those who buy this book because they think it somehow has anything to do with Fox are fools for both reasons.
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.
Wasn't that at the conference where O'Reilly kept yelling at Franken to shut up while he was speaking? I heard about this a while back, and as I understand it, the deal was that Franken had gone over on his time (not uncommon) and that O'Reilly started yelling at him. And then the inevitable screaming match ensued.
I'm still waiting on O'Reilly to freak out at physically attack someone on his show.
Watching him get his ass handed to him by the NC prof about the Koran a while back was priceless....
It's likely that Fox went through with the suit because Al Franken chewed O'Reilly for lunch during a C-SPAN BookTV broadcast earlier in the year. I like how O'Reilly always has to reaffirm his manhood, ending his article with a quote from The Godfather. I remember a day or two after the BookTV broadcast, O'Reilly appeared on The Savage Nation and told his audience he would shoot Franken in a duel had they been living in the Old West.
Yow.
Soft skin, Bill?
Also, this "Talking Points Memo" he has sounds similar name-wise to Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. I don't think anyone will confuse tabloid "journalist" O'Reilly with Joshua Micah Marshall.
Comments
hehe... Al doesn't seem too worried. I'm sure it's driving Fox News up the wall. O'Reilly and Scarborough are such tools.
Guess he didn't like the photo Franken was using on the cover of the book.
Basically he's just calling out the right-wingers on their shoddy fact checking and creative editing. And they can't handle it.
http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/...2_franken.html
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.
I'll devote very little time to this response.
My experience is this: I am a communications lawyer who does an awful lot of work with First Amendment issues. Formerly, I worked in IP.
Your statement that he's attempting to "profit" off their
trademark and hence violating their trademark is question begging. "Profit" is only one factor that informs the Fair Use analysis.
Thoth.
BR
SDW defending Fox. Gee. Who would ever have predicted this?
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
chu-bakka:
ere's a good interview with Al before the lawsuit.
Basically he's just calling out the right-wingers on their shoddy fact checking and creative editing. And they can't handle it.
Oh, is that all? Thanks.
dstranathan:
I saw the C-Span show live with Al and O'Reilly on an author panel a couple months ago. Franken previewed the book for the first time (with a live audience too) and O'Reilly totally flipped-out. It became a WWF cage match for a while. Fun to watch...
Perhaps you missed what happened in April when Franken went totally "flippo" at the correspondants dinner.
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
Finally, it's important to realize that Franken is truly nuts. What Fox says about him in the suit is correct (though I doubt they should have said it). Franken has no shame, that's for sure. I think he's hilarious, but...wow.
He used Fair and Balanced in the subtitle of his book... and the title is obviously satire... it's not called Al Franken "Fair and Balanced".
http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/vall.../s_130759.html
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
No, that's not the point, at least not the entire point. As I stated above, profit is only one factor in the analysis. Franken is not branding a taco he sells "Taco Bell", thus directly trading on the name of a competitor. He is not intending to "confuse" or "dilute" someone's trademark. There is very little likelihood of confusion where the title of the book includes "the lying liers who tell them," in conjunction with an obviously ironic, even sarcastic, use of a trademarked phrase. I suspect that you would agree that no one who is acquainted with the "fair and balanced" trademark would think that Al Franken's book was a product of Fox News? That's the kind of confusion Trademark law prevents.
Would you say that a book title not written by Al Franken or some other liberal wonk entitled "Fair and Balanced: Does Fox News Practice What They Preach?" would be prohibited by the Trademark laws?
Trademarks are limited monopolies that are strongly circumscribed by the First Amendment, especially in areas of political and public interest, such as we have here.
You may not like Al Franken, but Fox's suit has zero merit.
Thoth
O'Reilly tried to bash Franken last night but he didn't mention his name or the book only alluded to it at the top of the broadcast.
O'Reilly and Franken need to have debate/contest to see who is the most Fair and Balanced. Who ever looses must relinquish their claim.
Originally posted by SDW2001
The point is folks, that if Franken is using a trademarked phrase to SELL something, he's going to lose.
That Franken's selling something using the trademarked phrase is far, far from enough to cause him to lose the case. Protection for a trademark such as "fair and balanced" is especially weak since it's such an ordinary commonplace phrase. The more ordinary the trademark is, the more restricted the contexts in which the right to the trademark can be protected.
Franken is clearly not attempting to represent his book as a product of Fox News by using the phrase. There is little chance of a consumer becoming confused into believing he's purchasing a Fox product when buying Franken's book.
Franken is clearly not attempting to bask in any legitimacy (real or imagined) that Fox News has by using their trademarked phrase. Quite to the contrary, Franken is making a fairly obvious satirical attack against Fox's legitimacy. Turning a person's (or an organization's) own words against them has long standing as a common rhetorical device, and most certainly is protected free speech.
The only thing giving me the slightest doubt of Franken's victory in this case is my cynical feeling that the American justice system often devolves into a contest of who can spend the most on expensive lawyers and campaign contributions to political allies of the judges involved.
Originally posted by SDW2001
BR trying to discredit a valid argument by painting the arguer as a crackpot partisan who is incapable of having a well thought-out opinion. Who would have ever predicted this?
I was in no way trying to discredit your argument. I just was "audibly" expressing my sheer amazement that you would ever defend anything said or done by Fox Corporation. Please understand that my statement did not contain one iota of sarcasm. I am truly baffled by how fair and balanced you are in defending Fox Corporation as well as Fox News Channel.
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Aug/08142...sday/83756.asp
Yup... Fair and Balanced...
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,88364,00.html
does anyone believe their account of what happened at the event?
Originally posted by Thoth2
No, that's not the point, at least not the entire point. As I stated above, profit is only one factor in the analysis. Franken is not branding a taco he sells "Taco Bell", thus directly trading on the name of a competitor. He is not intending to "confuse" or "dilute" someone's trademark. There is very little likelihood of confusion where the title of the book includes "the lying liers who tell them," in conjunction with an obviously ironic, even sarcastic, use of a trademarked phrase. I suspect that you would agree that no one who is acquainted with the "fair and balanced" trademark would think that Al Franken's book was a product of Fox News? That's the kind of confusion Trademark law prevents.
Would you say that a book title not written by Al Franken or some other liberal wonk entitled "Fair and Balanced: Does Fox News Practice What They Preach?" would be prohibited by the Trademark laws?
Trademarks are limited monopolies that are strongly circumscribed by the First Amendment, especially in areas of political and public interest, such as we have here.
You may not like Al Franken, but Fox's suit has zero merit.
Thoth
You said it perfectly
Originally posted by giant
You said it perfectly
Of course.
I am just amazed by the statements I am reading here. It's like some of you live on another planet.
Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.
http://www.businessknowhow.com/QandA/phrasetm.htm
From the selection:
Typically, the more famous a trademark, the greater the risk that the public could be so confused," explains intellectual property attorney Thomas O'Rourke. "Although there are a number of factors that need to be considered in making this determination, one that will be very relevant is whether the book is perceived as "riding on the coattails" of the mark. If a mark is well known and the book title is using the fame of the mark to boost the marketability of the book, then there will probably be infringement. If the mark is not famous or well known and the subject of the book has nothing to do with the goods or services that the mark is used with, then there is probably little risk of trademark infringement."_
(emphasis added)
This isn't about Fox or anyone's politics. It's about a clear attempt to piggyback on their phrase.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Franken has two problems. One, he used a trademarked phrase to sell his product. Two, he even mimicked the look and feel of the trademarks owner....which COULD, in fact, result in confusion. Look at the cover...it's even in the same FONT Fox uses. There is no question that this is infringement.
I am totally amazed about your mistrust in the american educational level.
"Wow. So if I buy this book I can actually see FoxNews? I didn´t know they had started to put TV sets in books now"
Those who buy this book because they think it somehow has anything to do with Fox are fools for both reasons.
Originally posted by SDW2001
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.
Wasn't that at the conference where O'Reilly kept yelling at Franken to shut up while he was speaking? I heard about this a while back, and as I understand it, the deal was that Franken had gone over on his time (not uncommon) and that O'Reilly started yelling at him. And then the inevitable screaming match ensued.
I'm still waiting on O'Reilly to freak out at physically attack someone on his show.
Watching him get his ass handed to him by the NC prof about the Koran a while back was priceless....
Cheers
Scott
Courtesy of Busy, Busy, Busy:
Shorter Bill O'Reilly
? Fox's trademark infringement lawsuit is just our way of getting back at Al Franken for saying mean things about us.
Look what he has to say (FOX News link, guys)
Does he have any credibility left?
It's likely that Fox went through with the suit because Al Franken chewed O'Reilly for lunch during a C-SPAN BookTV broadcast earlier in the year. I like how O'Reilly always has to reaffirm his manhood, ending his article with a quote from The Godfather. I remember a day or two after the BookTV broadcast, O'Reilly appeared on The Savage Nation and told his audience he would shoot Franken in a duel had they been living in the Old West.
Yow.
Soft skin, Bill?
Also, this "Talking Points Memo" he has sounds similar name-wise to Joshua Micah Marshall's Talking Points Memo. I don't think anyone will confuse tabloid "journalist" O'Reilly with Joshua Micah Marshall.