Fox v Franklin

[yendi]

The verdict: Case is without merit.

Not that anyone with an IQ above eighty-five should be surprised.

This has been a fair and balanced entry.

Comments

[xforge.livejournal.com]

The Fox lawsuit described Franken as a "C-level political commentator" who is "increasingly unfunny" and suggested he was "intoxicated or deranged" when he confronted a table of Fox personalities at a correspondents' dinner in April.

Franken should oh so most definitely countersue for that. Whatta bunch of maroons. Thanks for the free publicity guys!!! Ka-Ching!! I'll be going to buy my copy later this afternoon... it'll be the first Franken book I've bought... but I might get "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot" while I'm there. Hee!!

This has been a fair and balanced response. (Unfortunately that meme is going to die before I really got a chance to use it... sigh)

[dwivian]

Without merit, but legally required... for Fox to continue to claim the (dubious) trademark, they had to try to enforce it. Now, they've lost all rights to it, I'll bet. Which, of course, is a good thing.

[amokk]

Dunno, we'll have to wait and find out. I don't see how they had a case in the first place. Yes, trademark and all that, but I think it's being used under allowed means (parody, political commentary, whatever) so I think Fox could still keep it.

I don't necessarily agree about it being a good thing if they lose it, though. Bad precedent, lose a trademark just because a lawsuit was thrown out.

[dwivian]

Trademark doesn't have the same allowed means as copyright does -- something a lot of people seem to confuse. Trademark has much stricter protections because of the potential for endorsement confusion, and that strongly limits parody, political commentary, and even whatever. :)

And, the precedent isn't that the case was thrown out, but that trademarking common or moderate use phrases is not a good idea. Any case can be thrown out, but saying that the trademark itself should have never proceeded is a good thing. I hope the court hold strong on that point.

[amokk]

Ah. True, trademarking common things is pretty stupid, unless you use it in a unique way. Personally I think it's fine for Fox to use it, just this case was overly stupid.

Anyway, I know more about copyright than trademark. I'm really wanting to take a class on both so I can really learn what's what but without having to be in law school. ;)

Yay!

[wmjosiah.livejournal.com]

At least our legal system isn't completely broken. I like it when things like that get thrown out of court. Thank goodness! And here I was thinking you could sue ANYONE for ANYTHING and win.

[condign.livejournal.com]

Like the book, so the case.

[amokk]

The network had argued the subtitle to Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" could trick some consumers into believing the book is associated with Fox. The book's subtitle is "A fair and balanced look at the Right." Fox trademarked "fair and balanced" in 1998.


And with that as the arguement, I agree that it should have been thrown out. I don't know why they don't just put down "we think people are dumb enough to believe Al Franken would associate with Fox News and since we're not getting a cut, we're suing".

Besides, the trademark is for "fair and balanced" not "a fair and balanced look". If it was the later they'd have more of a case, since it is the former then anyone using "fair and balanced" needs to be sued. Besides, for it to be a trademark case, the infringing use has to be in the same market as the original use. Apple Computers and Apple Cleaning Service are both allowed to have similar trademarks because they're in different businesses. Fox is news, Franken is sarcasm and political commentary. I know a lot of people don't see a difference, but it does exist. ;)

[xforge.livejournal.com]

And with that as the arguement, I agree that it should have been thrown out. I don't know why they don't just put down "we think people are dumb enough to believe Al Franken would associate with Fox News and since we're not getting a cut, we're suing".

Fox News and for that matter their parent company seems to have made its trade on assuming people ARE dumb enough. (grin)

That having been said, who the hell do they think they're kidding using "fair and balanced" as their trademark? I mean, they're the bloody George W. Bush Cheerleading Squad. Come ON already.