Is satire protected from trademark laws?

Al Franken alluded to this in his response, but is this the case?

There must be a few lawyers on this board!!!

I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding is that this type of satire is constitutionally protected speech. Fox news is a high-profile public organization, and is therefore a legitimate target for satire.

ON EDIT: There may be an issue with the fact that he is using this trademarked phrase in the title of the book, rather than as part of a satirical piece in the book. That might give the Fox lawyers an opening. If he used the term "Fair and Balanced" as a tagline for a news organization that competes with Fox, I think Fox would have a case. But it's a stretch to argue that a humorous book is a "competitor" of Fox News Channel.

I will try to remember what the case or cases were

getting away with a totally bottomfeeding satire on Falwell. That case was fought all the way to the Supreme Court, brought by one picklefaced Charles Keating (yes, THAT Charles Keating, S&L thief and all around born again twit).

It is a blatant attempt to cost Frnaken money. They know they have little chance of winning. It's pure spite, as mean, petty, and vindictive as the right always is.

If anything good comes out of this, it will ba an admonition for Faux to drop that claim, as it constitutes false advertising.

this costs Franken will be recouped on free publicity and increase in book sales that have already skyrocketed because of the Faux lawsuit.

Didn't mean to "stutter" what you said here ... looks like I was typing (slowly) when you posted! Sorry for repeating you! :)

If anything good comes out of this, it will ba an admonition for Faux to drop that claim, as it constitutes false advertising.

A couple of people have suggested that Franken countersue for false advertsing. I think he really should--let them PROVE they're fair and balanced!

rocknation

No, Fox CAN argue that a satirical book is a competitor of the Fox News Channel.

But THAT requires that the Fox News Channel be parsed ironically.

IOW, it requires arguing that the Fox News Channel is not a news channel (which therefore makes the issue of "fair and balanced" entirely moot!)

Delicious that irony, no?

there are lots of phrases that are trademarked but you don't get sole and exclusive use of a trademark when you trademark something. A trademark is a limited right and other people can use the words under a lot of circumstances.

http://www.alfrankenweb.com/lawsuit1.html

I would think Fair Use doctrine protects Franken. I would also think that there would be an issue about crossing mediums. I mean, if he were doing a "Fair and Balanced" tv special, it may be a closer case. But I still think it would be protected as satire.

Clearly, CNN couldn't change its slogan to "Fair and Balanced," but this is a lot different.

Remember when Jerry Falwell sued Larry Flynt over the Hustler parody ad that said Falwell's first sexual experience was with his mother in an outhouse?



<snip>

http://www.jimhurd.org/flynt.html

The Falwell suit claimed damages on three different grounds:

That Flynt had appropriated Falwells name and likeness for the purpose of advertisement That Flynt had Libeled Falwell by making false and defamatory statements claiming that Falwell was an alcoholic and insincere in his ministry That Flynt had had intentionally caused emotional distress.

<snip>



The judge threw out the first count and when the jury had to then decide on the second two counts, they found in favor of Flynt on the libel count and in favor of Falwell on emotional distress. Anyway, it ended up going to the Supreme Court where Flynt won on all counts.

I'd have to think that Faux is fighting a losing battle .... seriously, who in their right mind wouldn't know that Al Franken's book is satire? Oh, well .... looks like the free publicity is GREAT for Al so more power to him! :)

if I'm not mistaken, and he won. Don't remember who sued him, but parodies are constitutionally protected free speech.

the rapper who did "Gangster's Paradise".

The one with the crazy hair.

ok, ok, I know that's not much of a clue :D

Unless you're a Repub crybaby...then you sue.

But never "misunderestimate" the ability of the right wing to circumvent constitutional protections.