[JustAnAmerican]

"Al Franken is a mouth-breathing moron, but FoxNews does not have the slightest bit of a legal case here.

If they can prove that people will associate that slogan with theirs, or that this moron purposely used that slogan as an afront to Fox News, they have a very good case. Trademark Laws are very specific when it comes to word marks.

[dead]

If he were running a news channel, and was being deliberately deceptive in trying to steal their trademark, they'd have a case.

But they don't.

Howard Stern had an even more blatant conflict when he named his second book "Miss America" but the case was immediately thrown out of court. The ruling was that he was obviously not being deceptive or trying to make people believe that his book was about the beauty pagent.

The words "fair and balanced" belong to nobody.

[GigaDittos]

It's seems the "newsroom" in the background would be a dead give-away. I mean wasn't this fool on Saturday Night Live...how related is that to a newsroom? So where is the relation to his past? Was he once a news person? If so, maybe he's got a chance, otherwise I think it's plainly obvious.

[John Beresford Tipton]

"Trademark Laws are very specific when it comes to word marks."

Yes, but if he did not appropriate their slogan as his, but rather used their slogan as "satire" then I think he's okay.
Satire is protected.

[Hildy]

But if they're using their trademark in conjunction with pictures of people are their network, doesn't that make a difference?