Posted on 10/19/2019 2:17:09 AM PDT by jimbug
President Donald Trump and his legal team have threatened to sue CNN for violating the Lanham Act.
(Excerpt) Read more at scribd.com ...
Lanham act relates to trademarks. How will this relate?
Part of the Lanham Act also involves false advertising. When CNN said it was unbiased....it’s said now that this was a bold lie. Same for suggesting it was totally neutral.
It has a case because of these videos that came out in the past week, where CNN employees agreed that the network was no longer neutral. Judge assigned to this will have a rough time deciding the ultimate fate of CNN, based on the law.
Whether or not the suit has merit, it will ensure that most of the MSM covers the story, and therefore also O’Keffe’s #ExposeCNN reporting.
So even if Trump doesn’t prevail on the suit, he still wins!
Delicious! Thanks for the info
What Trump is doing is really brilliant. I doubt that the courts will give this lawsuit much credence, then again you never know....BUT
Isn’t it delightful to think about what “discovery” will be like esp if it’s televised?
ZUCKER WILL BE FORCED TO ADMIT HIS BIAS....
Discovery is what Trump wants. Get it on record for the public to see and hear.
I think the only legal thing that can come out of this...maybe a small fine ($10k), and CNN ordered to remove advertising saying it’s ‘fair’ or ‘unbiased’. You might go through six months of zero advertising by CNN to just avoid being noticed.
All of this leads to Jeff Zucker, and the odds that shortly after the election of 2020...he’s canned and sent off. They can’t afford another four years of biased reporting. I’ll go and predict that a third of the journalists attached to CNN presently...won’t be around in 2021, and they will be let go as the owners of the network go into a rebuilding stage.
“How will this relate?”
It also relates to false advertising. So to put an end to this it will have to go to the SCOTUS to determine the Constitutionality along with interpretation of first amendment Free press...i.e. the privilege to lie. (Only God gives rights)
rwood
They’ll encircle CNN like a wounded elephant calf.
Maybe they can change their name to Cable Opinion Network, CON.
Per Wiki
In the United States, the federal government regulates advertising through the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with truth-in-advertising laws, and additionally enables private litigation through various statutes, most significantly the Lanham Act (trademark and unfair competition).
The goal is prevention rather than punishment, reflecting the purpose of civil law in setting things right rather than that of criminal law. The typical sanction is to order the advertiser to stop its illegal acts, or to include disclosure of additional information that serves to avoid the chance of deception. Corrective advertising may be mandated, but there are no fines or prison time except for the infrequent instances when an advertiser refuses to stop despite being ordered to do so.
False advertising is the use of false, misleading, or unproven information to advertise products to consumers. The advertising frequently does not disclose its source.
One form of false advertising is to claim that a product has a health benefit or contains vitamins or minerals that it in fact does not. Many governments use regulations to control false advertising. A false advertisement can further be classified as deceptive if the advertiser deliberately misleads the consumer, as opposed to making an honest mistake.
Omitting information
An ad may omit or skim over important information. The ad’s claims may be technically true, but the ad does not include information that a reasonable person would consider relevant. For example, TV advertisements for prescription drugs may technically fulfill a regulatory requirement by displaying side-effects in a small font at the end of the ad, or have a “speed-talker” list them. This practice was prevalent in the United States in the recent past.
If it can be shown they worked to help democrats and worked to hurt Trump then the I believe it should be counted as a political donation bet no one is reporting this to government
15 U.S.C. 1125 (SECTION 43 OF THE LANHAM ACT): FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN
Taken from the U.S. Government Publishing Office in February 2016
15 U.S.C. Section Index
SUBCHAPTER III - General Provisions
§1125 FALSE DESIGNATIONS OF ORIGIN, FALSE DESCRIPTIONS, AND DILUTION FORBIDDEN
(a) Civil action
(1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
(A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
(B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
(2) As used in this subsection, the term “any person” includes any State, instrumentality of a State or employee of a State or instrumentality of a State acting in his or her official capacity. Any State, and any such instrumentality, officer, or employee, shall be subject to the provisions of this chapter in the same manner and to the same extent as any nongovernmental entity.
I don’t think it will work for Trump due to the following exclusions in the law
(3) Exclusions
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with—
(i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
(ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.
(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
(3) Exclusions
The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
(B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.
“...deciding the ultimate fate of CNN, based on the law.”
I think it’s bigger than that. Determining equal coverage is not, in my mind, what Trump is after. They pay a fine for that. I think it is staying within the Trump claim of false news he talks about.
I think it will challenge the first amendment for the privilege to lying based upon free speech determinations in the first amendment and how they can be interpreted.
By doing it this way, he keeps it within the federal jurisdiction and out of the hands of the civil courts that are so packed with left leaning judges and attorneys. And at the same time, it awards the public a ringside seat to a news source running for cover in the open along with the voters seeing an attack by the law on left leaning mouthpieces identifying falsehoods. Win/win.
rwood
It might get them to drop “fair and balance” kind of like how google no longer says “don’t be evil”
Pretty sure fraud that damages a persons’s “brand” is illegal. At least, it should be.
Too bad Project Veritas didn’t send in crews to MSNBC concurrent with the CNN investigation. The resultant sh!tstorm would be interesting with lawsuit discovery. Expose the two biggies at once. Wouldn’t that be fuuun?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.