Out Foxed:A lawsuit against Al Franken isn't very fair and balanced(?)

Opinionjournal.com (WSJ) ^ | Friday, August 15, 2003 | Editorial Board

[jmstein7]

Out Foxed A lawsuit against Al Franken isn't very fair and balanced.

Friday, August 15, 2003 12:01 a.m. EDT

It's not easy siding with Al Franken. After all, the "Saturday Night Live" comic turned political commentator has always accorded this newspaper a prominent spot in his pantheon of villains, and we fully expect that honor to continue in his soon-to-be-released book. So it will likely come as a surprise to Mr. Franken that we think Fox is doing itself no favors by suing him for trademark infringement and unfair competition.

That's right. In papers filed with the State Supreme Court in Manhattan, Fox News alleges that Mr. Franken's book--"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right"--unlawfully appropriates the words "fair and balanced" (which Fox trademarked in 1997) as well as a photograph of "The O'Reilly Factor's" Bill O'Reilly on the cover, in a format similar to Mr. O'Reilly's own books. The stated worry behind Fox v. Franken is that the combination of the network's "signature slogan" plus Mr. O'Reilly's picture will confuse readers into believing that Fox has somehow associated itself with or endorsed the work.

It gets even better. The suit devotes considerable space to calling Mr. Franken names ("shrill," "unstable," "deranged") and making the case that his reputation as a political commentator "is not of the same caliber as the stellar reputations of FNC's on-air talent." Mr. Franken's efforts to bamboozle the unsuspecting apparently extend to appearing on the cover of his own book in a "conservative business suit" and a "patriotic red and blue striped tie."

Goodness knows that U.S. courts are capable of almost any mischief these days. Yet we have a hard time believing that this court is going to buy the argument that Mr. Franken's parody really will have people so confused they can't tell it from the Real McCoy. To the contrary, as countless blogs are now gleefully reporting, the Fox suit has given Mr. Franken the kind of publicity boost writers dream of, propelling his book to Amazon.com's No. 1 spot. . .

[Diverdogz]

Gotta agree with this article. FOX's lawsuit is stupid and has done nothing but help Al Franken sell books.

[mngalt]

Fox has already achieved its aim in filing the suit, to wit:

1. Everybody is on notice that if you choose to capitalize on the success of Fox News, as the scum, Al Franken, is wont to do, you will have to spend mega-bucks defending a suit.

2. Fox News was all over even their competitors air providing millions in free publicity.

3. They got to eviscerate the scum, Al Franken, in court documents in a manner which might have been slanderous otherwise.

All in all, a brilliant preemptive strike against the formerly funny SNL alum and currently un-funny political "commentator" and "satirist".

[Common Tator]

How is this relevant to the lawsuit?

Only someone clueless about the art of free media would ask that quiestion.

The suit is about getting lots of free air time and print space for both Fox and Franken. What part of excellent pubicity stunt for both of them escaped you?

[tet68]

Let Al diss the WSJ by the same means and see how long
they let it ride.

[Bluntpoint]

This is a nuisance suit, pure and simple.

This is not a shining moment for Fox or anyone else who believes that the courts should be used for such nonsense.

Abuse of the justice system is not laudable simply because one of our enemies is at focus of suit.

Tort reform would end such nonsense.

[Poodlebrain]

In order to protect a trademark you have to take active steps to prevent its unauthorized use. Fox really has no choice but to sue if they want their trademark to have any value.

[optimistically_conservative]

I suppose if there are enough frivolous lawsuits filed under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, we can get rid of it. That's about the only good thing that will come out of this.

[Bluntpoint]

Fox could have used its own air time to educate the public as to its ownership of its slogan and then admit that parody is permitted by the law.

This is just silly.

If this was ABC going after Ann Coulter for the same type of parody you would be crying foul and call ABC a bunch of pussies.

[Wondervixen]

Fox should turn and do likewise to Franken...Either foster the slogan "This is the FOX News Decade," or create a new one, "FOX News...We're not FRANKEN your chain!"

[Diverdogz]

So, tell me again how this lawsuit protects the trademark when the court laughs at it and throws it out as frivolous?

[Brimack34]

I do not think it is frivolous. Too me the tobacco cases, big fat,spilled coffee are on that order. Bill O'Reilly wanted this so what was Fox too do. It maybe sell a few hundred books, but lawyers will eat that up.

[Bluntpoint]

"We're not FRANKEN your chain!"

That would have been the intelligent response to this idiot, Franken.

[mngalt]

That's right, you're absolutely correct. The scum, Al Franken, is a nuisance. That said, there's nothing frivilous about protecting your trademarked image and preventing bottom feeders from profitting by it's use.

Better this type suit, than using the courts to Stalinize the country's history and criminalize religious expression.

[Bluntpoint]

Frivilous suit is a frivilious suit.

I left the practice of law because of such antics.

[Diverdogz]

The sure could do that. But then the message would be that they percieve Franken to be a threat.

The best thing to do would be to ignore Franken. Too late for that.

[okie01]

"Gotta agree with this article. FOX's lawsuit is stupid and has done nothing but help Al Franken sell books."

On the other hand, Fox's legal department would have (rightly) advised management that a trademark undefended is a trademark lost.

Fox has served notice, thus accomplishing their legal objective. Expect a settlement in time.