joegratz.net

July 19, 2004

Independent Media Institute Challenges “Fair & Balanced” Trademark

The Independent Media Institute has initiated a cancellation procedure for Trademark Registration Number 2,213,427, Fox News Channel’s trademark on the phrase “fair and balanced.” IMI alleges that the mark is (1) merely descriptive with no secondary meaning; (2) generic; and (3) deceptively misdescriptive.

Even if this goes nowhere (which is likely — the Patent and Trademark Office is, after all, part of the Executive Branch), it could force Fox News to make some embarrassing admissions, especially as to descriptiveness. To rebut this charge, they’ll have to show that, with regard to Fox News coverage, “fair and balanced” means something other than the everyday meaning of the words. In other words, they’ll have to show that “fair and balanced” means something different from “balanced and fair”, which could put them in a bit of a spot.

6 Comments

Wow, cool.

Any idea if this was explicitly coordinated with MoveOn/Common Cause’s petition to the FTC on the same issue?

Comment by Eli — July 19, 2004 @ 8:56 pm
Yup. Except this has been pending since last year, more or less, I think, in secret. See http://www.alternet.org for details.

Comment by Joe Gratz — July 19, 2004 @ 9:09 pm
Can you really sue someone over an advertising slogan? That’s what Move-On is trying.

Comment by Brian Ulrich — July 20, 2004 @ 11:46 am
As much as I detest Fox, this whole business is silly. Okay, so say many months from now the TM Board grants the petition, what then? Well, it doesn’t prevent Fox from continuing to call itself Fair & Balanced, as the proceeding is only about cancelling the registration, it does not invalidate the mark itself. So big deal, the registration is gone so Fox can no longer threaten to sue any other users of the mark. Just goes to show that you are using the legal process not for a substantive end but just to tweek the nose of an entity you don’t like. Sure you can do it, have fun. Its just so petty, self-congratulatory and lame.

Comment by Casey — July 21, 2004 @ 9:16 pm
Casey –

I agree that the remedy here — cancellation — doesn’t really have any bite at the moment. They’re unlikely, after the Franken debacle, to be heavy-handed in their enforcement of the mark.

IMI is using the cancellation procedure to make a political point. I don’t see anything wrong with it. They really do think their claim has merit, so I don’t think it’s really lame.

Joe

Comment by Joe Gratz — July 22, 2004 @ 10:15 am
IMI is using the cancellation procedure to make a political point.
I understand that, I just think this as a silly, weak outlet to make a political point. I prefer to see political fights take place (for the most part) in the political arena. OUTFOXED is a great example. It uses Fox’s own material to make a persuasive argument that they have no credibility as a legitimate news organization. And persuasion is what its all about in politics; getting more people to agree with your perspective and act accordingly. The legal system is quite different. Winning a legal battle does not necessarily persuade anyone as to what is true. See OJ Simpson. You don’t think the reg challenge is lame, fair enough. I’m just some random reader who disagrees.

Comment by Casey — July 22, 2004 @ 2:33 pm