Should FOX NEWS be allowed to trademark the term "Fair and Balanced?"

I don't have the article link, but I read in the CHicago Tribune that Al Franken is coming out with a book called something like "Lies and the Lying Liars who tell them: A Fair and Balanced look at the Right."

Fox News is SUING Franken over his use of the term Fair and Balanced, claiming they 'trademarked' that term and it's theirs, no one else can claim to be fair and balanced.

Does that mean that all phrases can be trademarked? I mean, can AHHHnold trademark "I'll be back?" Isn't this just as stupid and ridiculous as Spike Lee trying to sue TNN for changing it's name to Spike TV?

I mean, even you conservatives can't believe that this is a good idea or that your 'fair and balanced' network should have sole claim to that phrase. Right?

 

I love FoxNews, but that's just dumb.



Don't leave me.
Don't ignore me.
Don't kill me!

 

Is that today's paper OWM?

 

I'm pretty sure such phrases have been trademarked over the years.

 

Maybe they felt they had a better chance of winning a case based on the trademark, rather than trying to sue for libel and needing to prove that (a) the "Fair and Balanced" in the book's title refers specifically to FOX, and (b) that they really aren't "Lying Liars."

 

Fox News has an absolute right to sue that pinhead who utilized their slogan with photos of their analysts/reporters on the cover of his book.

It's like any other business.

 

But doesn't it fall under the same legal protection as parody? Even if the term is trademarked, can't I use it in making fun of FOX?

 

You certainly can. That's the other claim though, that the layout of the book is too similar to the books Fox News publishes, like that of O'Reilly's, and that people will unknowingly mistake Al Fraken for one of Fox's conservative writers.

 

I'd like to buy the word "And". The idea would be to corner the market on this useful little conjunction. With the profits I'll buy a few other words like "or," "if" and "because" until I have monopolistic control over a small but critical part of the English language.

Then I'll sit back and collect royalty checks for the rest of my life.

 

Good plan Jabbadabbado, but unfortunately for you, I just trademarked the letters "a" and "b"...so we have some financial matters to settle.

 

This is pretty clearly a frivolous lawsuit. There are some examples that tangentially seem similar which would uphold Murdoch's case, but the vast majority of legal writers I've seen on this matter have reinforced my viewpoint that this is bad law and bad PR for Fox.

 

I love FoxNews, but that's just dumb.

I agree, but they do have the legal right.

 

Legal right to what? Copyright common phrases? There are multiple things wrong with their lawsuit, aside from the common-sense angle.

 

You should know that you can't use other businesses' slogans for your own business, 7.

Pepsi can't have a picture of Coke on it's product and say "The Real Crappy Thing" or it's real slogan "The Real Thing".

Simple as that.

Franken has a picture of O'Reilly on his book with Fox News' slogan as the title of his book with the obvious slander.

Franken (who I have no respect for, anyway - he's nothing but a pinhead), could have simply titled his book "lies within the media" or a "fair look at conservative media", etc.

 

Legal right to what? Copyright common phrases?

But what can you trademark if not normal words and phrases?

Are you required to invent new words (or unusual word combinations) before you can apply for a trademark?

If so, then edmunds.com better stop claiming "True Market Value" as their registered trademark, because I'm sure someone uttered the phrase at least once before they thought of using it.

 

Follow this link, please .

 

First of all, if this is some kind of attack on Fox News, then I think you might be able to come up with SOMETHING better. I, for one, am a conservative, and I do watch Fox often. But I also watch CNN and other news stations, but I find Fox the most refreshing and at least you get a more balanced viewpoint.

But anyway, about the trademark, I don't have a problem with it at all. I work at a retail buisness, now say if we had some slogan, I wouldn't want the company in the next town to use the same one. Or let's say a movie opens next year and it starts with, "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." Just a phrase? Phrases should be able to be copywrited.

 

Yeah, I saw this earlier, Franken's within his rights to use it. Besides "Fair and Balanced" was around before foxnews.

 

Fair And Balanced
By: Bill O'Reilly

Thursday, Aug 14, 2003

In a few weeks the Fox News Channel will celebrate its seventh birthday awash in publicity and success.

From virtually nothing, the organization that employs me has risen up to become one of the most powerful news agencies in the country. This is a stunning achievement but it's also one that has engendered bitterness and controversy.

Fox has succeeded by mixing a populist-traditional, pro-American editorial posture with lively debate that includes voices the traditional network news organizations would never allow airtime.

The accusation that Fox is a conservative network is pure propaganda as poll after poll has demonstrated that FNC's audience is across the board ideologically and demographically.

The latest survey taken by Mediamark Research finds that more ultra-conservative viewers watch CNN than FNC.

But facts don't matter to the Fox haters who are, themselves, primarily ultra-liberal.

The dominance of FNC in the cable news world has shattered the stranglehold the left had on TV news for decades, and that has caused fear and loathing in some political circles.

Using liberal-leaning newspapers and publishing houses, the critics of FNC have unleashed defamatory personal attacks on me and other Fox news analysts and have attempted to denigrate the entire network.

If Fox News crashed and burned tomorrow, these people would toast marshmallows in the flames.

Now Fox News is striking back by putting the demonizers on notice that they will be held responsible when they violate trademarks or launch defamatory personal attacks on Fox personnel.

It is simply a sorry joke to see a political activist like Al Franken labeled a "satirist" by The New York Times.

Attempting to smear and destroy the reputations of those with whom you politically disagree is not satire.

If that were the case Richard Nixon's Watergate plumbers would all be writing for Saturday Night Live. Hello, Donald Segretti, thanks for the satire, what a wit you are.

Fox News has become the highest rated news network on cable because we feature lively debate and all honest voices are welcome.

We don't do drive-by character assassinations and we don't denigrate opposing points of view by launching gratuitous personal attacks.

FNC's presentation is in the tradition of the raucous town meeting where passion and conviction is on display.

We challenge people of all political persuasions.

It makes me sick to see intellectually dishonest individuals hide behind the first amendment to spread propaganda, libel and slander.

But this is a growing trend in America where the exchange of ideas often degenerates into verbal mud wrestling with intent to injure.

The pubahs at The New York Times know what a smear campaign is but apparently if it's directed at an enterprise the paper disapproves of it's okay.

I wonder how the Times' editorialists would react if their faces graced a book cover accompanied by the word "liar."

Oh that's right, they'd consider it "satire."

This country is a better place because Fox News has succeeded. Now there is a wider range of thought and expression available 24/7. But the country is worse off because of the brutal repercussions of that success.

A nation that prides itself on diversity of opinion and acceptance of differing political points-of-view is being subjected to an orgy of media defamation and sometimes outright hatred.

And satire has nothing to do with it.

 

Besides "Fair and Balanced" was around before foxnews.

But seriously, how many times did you hear "Fair and Balanced" before FOX started using it as their slogan?

It's pretty obvious he intentionally used the FOX slogan to take an extra jab at them in the book's title.

Could he have named it "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Look at FOX News and Friends"?

Would it have had the same impact if it was named "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Look at Right-Wing Media"? It probably wouldn't sell quite as many copies with that title.

There is no doubt he's using FOX's trademark phrase; the question is whether he's protected by the First Amendment in poking fun (or hurling insults) at them.

 

A little ot, but I saw a segment on the guy who has the rights to "LET'S GET READY TO RUMBLE!!!" He's a freakin' millionaire because of five words.

 

I've heard it only a few times before foxnews was around, it's still nothing new. I don't think phrases should be copyrighted for exactly this reason. Songs, books, movies, and whatnot, can be copyrighted, but not phrases; that's just stupid.

 

Radio show host Phil Hendrie was talking about this on his show. He put "Fair and Balanced" on his website, and is encouraging others to do the same, just to screw with Fox News. I put it in my profile.

 

Legal right to what? Copyright common phrases? There are multiple things wrong with their lawsuit, aside from the common-sense angle.

What else is wrong with their lawsuit?

I think they have the right... As womberty said, what would you trademark except for words and phrases?

 

Hey, it's like McDonalds here copyrighting the term "100% Australian Beef."

It's not true, it's a company name. That way, they can use that slogan and lie through their teeth about their content. Just like Fox!

McDonalds = Questionable product under slogan "100% Australian Beef [tm]"

FOXNews = Questionable content under slogan "Fair and Balanced".

And I can tell you from experience that therre is little way that you're getting 100% beef and/or fair and balanced news.

//waits for tired liberal media comments in response...

E_S