The latest legal battle over a name: Fox News vs. Al Franken (1 Viewer)

[Mark Zimmer]

Verizon has filed trademark registrations for Can You Hear Me Now, Serial Nos 78182339(for telecommunication services, namely telephone service) and 78181828 (for clothing). They haven't been issued yet but are in process. And no, I don't think there's any likelihood of confusion between Verizon's telephone services (or clothing) and an Al Franken book of that name either. But I wouldn't want to lay odds on his chances of starting a sportswear line under that name.

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

Thanks Mark for that info.

Can you list the trademark/copy right for the phrase "Fair and Balanced" that Foxnews has copyrighted in '95 and what it pertains to.

Thanks

Paul

 

[Mark Zimmer]

From the USPTO site:


Typed Drawing


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Word Mark FAIR & BALANCED
Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs. FIRST USE: 19961007. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19961007
Mark Drawing Code (1) TYPED DRAWING
Serial Number 75280027
Filing Date April 23, 1997
Filed ITU FILED AS ITU
Published for Opposition March 3, 1998
Registration Number 2213427
Registration Date December 22, 1998
Owner (REGISTRANT) Fox News Network, LLC CORPORATION DELAWARE 1211 Avenue of the Americas New York NEW YORK 10036
Attorney of Record DAPHNE GRONICH
Type of Mark SERVICE MARK
Register PRINCIPAL
Live/Dead Indicator LIVE

 

[Paul_Medenwaldt]

entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs.

I'm not sure how Foxnews will be able to defend their copyright with pertaining to written media, when it was clearly copyrighted for television news.

It will be interesting to see what happens if there is an injunction on the publshing of the book since Penguin books has pushed the date of release to this friday.

CNN Article

Paul

 

[Michael Reuben]

Looks like Franken's attorneys removed the case to federal court (which is probably where it should have been in the first place). That's going to make it hard to track developments online, because the Southern District of New York is in the midst of a massive switchover of their records to a website that's still under construction.

M.

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> It will be interesting to see what happens if there is an injunction on the publshing of the book since Penguin books has pushed the date of release to this friday.

I don't see how they could stop the book, just possibly force changing the subtitle.

 

[Jeff Kleist]

Paul Newman has written an amusing commentary in the NY Times(free registration required)

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/19/op...partner=GOOGLE

 

[Jay Heyl]

Third, there has to be a likelihood of confusion of source such that an average purchaser, seeing Franken's book, would see the statement "A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" on the cover and think, "Oh, it says 'fair and balanced,' so this must be a publication of Fox News." Not bloody likely, I'd say. I'd like to see the proof of this element of the claim.

You don't think the pictures of Bill O'Reilly, a prominent Fox News program host, and Ann Coulter, a regular guest on Fox News programs, on the cover of the book might not add to the potential confusion just a bit?

 

[Chris Lockwood]

Franken apologizes to John Ashcroft for misleading letter:
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95162,00.html

 

[Jeff Kleist]

The difference is, that Bill O'Reilly would never have apologized.

 

[Jay Heyl]

The difference is, that Bill O'Reilly would never have apologized.

So, let's sum up here. In Franken's plus column we have that he caught Bill O'Reilly in a misstatement concerning the exact name of a journalism award won by a TV program on which O'Reilly formerly worked, said award being won after O'Reilly had left the program, and O'Reilly being the one to inform Franken of the error. In Franken's negative column, we have that he, shortly before publishing a book titled, "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them...", writes a letter to the Attorney General of the United States, on letterhead "borrowed" from a prestigious university, in which he blatantly and purposely lies about the involvement of well known people in some alleged book on sex education. (Don't have to look far to find the irony in that, eh?)

And your only response is that O'Reilly wouldn't have apologized? Uh, you think there just might be a, shall we say, flexible standard being applied here?

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

Doesn't anybody doubt the source of the news? A negative story about Al Franken on Fox News? Not only does that speak of bad taste, but also conflict of interest. Fox should really refrain from comment on the case. Although, if they're already going to lose, they might be willing to go ahead and pull out all the dirty tricks. Checking other major news sites (not just CNN), I see nothing on this, so maybe Fox News is willing to step down to libel/slander after all.

Oh, and about the cover of the book, like the Washington Post and others have said, no one who is a fan of Fox News or Al Franken would confuse this book cover for an actual Fox News product. You can barely tell if that's really Coulter and O'Reilly.

ETA: I didn't notice an "Associated Press" header on the article, which indicates that it comes directly from Fox News. Can we say propaganda?

 

[Philip Hamm]

Jay, you honestly think that O'Reilley wasn't trying to personally claim credit for the awards he mentioned (incorrectly in both number and name)? Why would he mention them (it)???

 

[Chris Lockwood]

> Fox should really refrain from comment on the case.

That article didn't comment on the case- it was about Franken writing a letter to Ashcroft.

If CNN didn't cover it, maybe they didn't want to give Fox the publicity.

I figured somebody would say Fox made it up. :frowning: I would think if they did, that could put them in much bigger trouble than Franken could be for possibly using their trademark.

I wonder if Franken is aware of where the URL alfranken.com goes. I thought he might have a site there to plug his books, but something tells me he's not involved. Check it out for yourself.

 

[D. Scott MacDonald]

Jay, you honestly think that O'Reilley wasn't trying to personally claim credit for the awards he mentioned (incorrectly in both number and name)? Why would he mention them (it)???

Once again, I'm not really trying to defend Bill or Fox as I'm not really a big fan or either, but if you're going to slam them, then PLEASE use a more compelling argument. As the website that YOU POSTED clearly points out, he mentioned the awards to defend Al's allegation that the show was purely trash TV. Bill was merely pointing out that it couldn't ALL be trash TV if it had one some awards. No place did he try to take credit for the actual awards, but was merely defending his involvement with the show.

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

You don't think the pictures of Bill O'Reilly, a prominent Fox News program host, and Ann Coulter, a regular guest on Fox News programs, on the cover of the book might not add to the potential confusion just a bit?

Seeing as how the cover is calling them "Liars", not really, no. It could conceivably cause confusion in a consumer who did know that Coulter and O'Reilly have shows on Fox News and that Fair and Balanced is the Fox news slogan but did not know that Fox are considered right wing. The title and the cover together do not paint any kind of confusing picture: they say I AM TAKING A BIG SWIPE AT FOX NEWS, HA HA!

 

[Patrick Larkin]

thesmokinggun.com has the origial letter Franken sent to Ashcrosft and a copy of his subsequent apology letter.

http://thesmokinggun.com/doc_o_day/doc_o_day.html

I must say, the letter to Ashcroft is pretty funny. I'm sure the only reason Franken apologized is because of Harvard. Why would he otherwise?

I wonder how Fox found out about the apology letter? Buddies in Ashcroft's office perhaps?

 

[Jay Heyl]

Why would he mention them (it)???

This has already been addressed several times in this thread.

 

[Jay Heyl]

I figured somebody would say Fox made it up. I would think if they did, that could put them in much bigger trouble than Franken could be for possibly using their trademark.

They could always just claim it was satire. I know I laughed when I read it.

 

[Jesse Blacklow]

I wonder how Fox found out about the apology letter? Buddies in Ashcroft's office perhaps?

Employees of Fox have worked for the administration and vice versa. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if rumors start "leaking" out of the DOJ to Fox News about secret Oval Office trysts between Al Franken and Bill Clinton. They really like to stoop low, even in non-editorial pieces. Thus my comment on Fox News' willingness to slander. Maybe they aren't as stupid as they make themselves look. Surprising.

Meanwhile, even targets of Franken come to his defense, not surprisingly in the form of defending the 1st Amendment (Ashcroft's favorite!).