In honor of Fair & Balanced Friday: let's sue Faux for false advertising!

[DagmarK]

I think we should get together and file a lawsuit in DC against Faux for its false advertising when it coins and trademarks iteself as "Fair and Balanced"

It will help Franken along ..... and we can continue to throw Faux's absurdities right in their lying, unfair and imbalanced little faces!

[PaDUer]

1. O'Reilly

would love it..

[AlinPA]

2. Check out what Pitt P-G says about Fox

http://www.post-gazette.com/forum/20030815edfox0815p2.asp

[AlinPA]

3. That is in today's ed. page

Fox is a joke.

[DagmarK]

6. Great little editorial!

Yeah, Franken's book, not yet on the shelves, is moving toward No. 1 Bestseller! Heck, I didn't even know Franken had a book coming out until this! Now I will surely get it! Suckers! LOL

But where he mentions the suit by Spike Lee re TNN's Spike TV name..... I really did think that Spike TV was going to be some cool independent film channel run by Spike! So Spike's lawsuit was totally justified. Hell, if OPRAH can Trademark her name......

And these really are apples and oranges. A person's name.....when a celebrity.....IS the use of the term for trademark purposes. Fair and Balanced? Sheesh.....those are two innocuous words in the english language. In fact, I am surprised that the trademark office granted that TM! I have done TM work.....and we were always getting denials from the trademark office for TMs that used simple non-specific english words like GOOD N Plenty or the such. The TM office will give you a TM for that, but with conditions that you don't OWN those words......

[stewert]

4. Check Out What O'Reilly Said !

Here is a quote from O'Reilly's wednesday night talking points, it is so
hypocritical it is stunning.

----

O'REILLY: The main point here is that trying to hurt a business or a person because you
disagree with what they say is simply unacceptable in America. And that message has
been sent by FOX. There's a principle in play. Vigorous debate is embraced by us, but
smear campaigns will be confronted.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,94702,00.html

----

Is he serious ? O'Reilly makes a living trying to hurt businesses and people he disagrees
with, then he cries foul when someone does it to him or fox news. The guy has lost his
fricking mind. He got Ludacris fired by pepsi, and he also called for a boycott of pepsi. That
is two examples right there of him trying to hurt businesses and people he disagrees with.

He also called for a boycott of the french because he disagreed with them. That boycott
only hurts the french people, not the government. Why should the french people be punished
for a political position the government took ?

O'Reilly is either a total hypocrite, or the dumbest person in America, or both.

[Walter_Bowman]

8. I don't drinking Pepsi - should I start now

just to piss him off.

[DagmarK]

5. Or, we could find some outfit that IS "fair and balanced"

and apply for a trademark and CHALLENGE Faux's trademark...on grounds that Faux is using their Fair & Balanced Trademark TO DECEIVE, which is contrary to trademark laws:

(note ***** in the following application requirements for the US Patent and Trademark Office)

That the applicant has adopted and is using the mark shown in the accompanying drawing; that the applicant believes it is the owner of the mark; that the mark is in use in commerce; that to the best of the declarant’s knowledge and belief, no other person has the right to use the mark in commerce, either in the identical form or in such near resemblance as to be likely, when applied to the goods or services of the other person, ********to cause confusion or mistake, or to deceive;************ that the specimen shows the mark as used on or in connection with the goods or services; and that the facts set forth in the application are true.

[DagmarK]

7. Here's the info on the Trademark Office file on Fair and Balanced...

Word Mark FAIR & BALANCED

Goods and Services IC 041. US 100 101 107. G & S: entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs. FIRST USE: 19961007. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19961007


Owner (REGISTRANT) Fox News Network, LLC CORPORATION DELAWARE 1211
Avenue of the Americas New York NEW YORK 10036

Attorney of Record DAPHNE GRONICH

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK

entertainment services in the nature of production and distribution of television news programs

Basis: 1(a)

*****INTERESTING that it is a SERVICE MARK, which has some pretty stringent requirements. The first one being that the service activity has to be performed for the benefit of others.....and we all know that Fox works for the benefit of its shareholders!!

ooooo, we should petition the trademark office and challenge this service mark!!!!!

1301.01(a) Criteria for Determining What Constitutes a Service

The following criteria have evolved for determining what constitutes a service:

(1) a service must be a real activity;

(2) a service must be performed to the order of, or for the benefit of, someone other than the applicant; and

(3) the activity performed must be qualitatively different from anything necessarily done in connection with the sale of the applicant’s goods or the performance of another service.

1301.01(a)(ii) For the Benefit of Others

To be a service, an activity must be primarily for the benefit of someone other than the applicant. While an advertising agency provides a service when it promotes the goods or services of its clients, a company that promotes the sale of its own goods or services is doing so for its own benefit rather than rendering a service for others. In re Reichhold Chemicals, Inc., 167 USPQ 376 (TTAB 1970). See TMEP §1301.01(b)(i). Similarly, a company that sets up a personnel department to employ workers for itself is merely facilitating the conduct of its own business, while a company whose business is to recruit and place workers for other companies is performing employment agency services.

The controlling question is who primarily benefits from the activity for which registration is sought:

If the activity is done primarily for the benefit of others, the fact that applicant derives an incidental benefit is not fatal. In re Venture Lending Associates, 226 USPQ 285 (TTAB 1985). On the other hand, if the activity primarily benefits applicant, it is not a registrable service even if others derive an incidental benefit. In re Dr. Pepper Co., 836 F.2d 508, 5 USPQ2d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 1987) (contest promoting applicant’s goods not a service, even though benefits accrue to winners of contest); In re Alaska Northwest Publishing Co., 212 USPQ 316 (TTAB 1981).

Collecting information for the purpose of publishing one’s own periodical is not a service, because it is done primarily for applicant’s benefit rather than for the benefit of others. See TMEP §1301.01(b)(iii).

Offering shares of one’s own stock for investment is not a service, because these are routine corporate activities that primarily benefit the applicant. See TMEP §1301.01(b)(iv). On the other hand, offering a retirement income plan to applicant’s employees was found to be a service, because it primarily benefits the employees.

[unfrigginreal]

9. Let's just start referring to them as Fab News.

It's cheap, but would probably serve the purpose of getting under their skin pretty well. You know that with all the talk around about the Fab5 "oh for shame" they wouldn't really appreciate the honor that we'd be bestowing upon them.