Best line on the Fox v. Franken suit so far courtesy of Ernie the Attorney:

I confess I know nothing about marketing and publicity, but maybe Fox would be better off if they just registered their news show as a candidate for the California gubernatorial election.

More good lines, including Franken’s initial response here.

Remember, the name of the book is “Lies and Lying Liars Who Tell Them,” the author is Al Franken, and it is available for pre-order on Amazon.

 

Several blog pieces have drawn responses from the loyal readership.  Recurring themes from my email this week include:

-Fox must be on crack (alternate – Is it possible to bring a cancellation action against Fox’ FAIR AND BALANCED registration on misdescriptiveness grounds?);

-That looks more like a Newf than a black Lab;

-Where can I get a Jelly Kelly?

-World’s Tiniest Digital Camera!!

Four people emailed me within 5 minutes about this dispute regarding the Black Dog Tavern of Cape Cod and Precious Paws, which desires to sell clothing.  Black Dog is claiming rights in the silhouette of a black lab.  Coverage here and here.

Black Dog Tavern homepage here. Precious Paws homepage here.

                      .

NY Times article on Hermes, maker of the (starting at) $5000 Birkin bag, suing the importer of a $150 rubber bag that is referred to as a ‘satire,’ ‘amusement’ ‘fake rubber Birkin,’ ‘knock-off’ and ‘trade dress infringement’ in the article.  The rubber version is probably the more practical choice on a rainy day.  Hermes has a smaller bag known as the Kelly and the rubber ‘version’ is known as the Jelly Kelly.

Interesting tidbit:  According to the article, Hermes has a Kirkland and Ellis paralegal spending 10 to 20 hours a week scanning eBay for Hermes knock-offs.

Interesting tidbit #2:  Ebay is selling some Birkin Bags for $25,000 and some for $25.  Hmmm.

Interesting tidbit #3: If you put in BIRKIN BAG as a keyword on Google, the first sponsored link (just now) was an ad for eBay that had nothing to do with Birkin Bags (see here for context).

The Washington Post reports that Fox News has filed suit against Al Franken, for whom the 80’s were named, author of the book “Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right.”  Fox claims that the book seeks to trade on Fox’ trademark FAIR AND BALANCED and the cover of Fox personality Bill O’Reilly’s book.  In its complaint, Fox allegedly refers to Franken as unstable and shrill. 

You can pre-order Al Franken’s book on Amazon.

An article from the Journal News (my local paper) about Intel filing an opposition against a local psychic who filed an application for SPIRITINSIDE for spirtual advisory services.  Intel filed on the basis of its INTEL INSIDE and INSIDE family of marks.  Psychics aside, a trademark search of -INSIDE marks predict that Intel aggressively polices -INSIDE marks.  The article quotes yours truly.

A previous INTEL INSIDE matter here.

Once not obscure, today somewhat obscure title reference here.

From the Boston Herald:

Jasper White, owner of the popular Jasper White’s Summer Shack restaurants, who trademarked the phrase “Food is Love,” says rival Red Lobster executives ripped off his idea and turned it into their “Share the Love” campaign.

Red Lobster’s roll-out of its campaign here.  Summer Shack menu here.  Lyrics to Rock Lobster here.

Interesting UK trademark opposition reported by IPKat.  The National Canine Defense League filed for TOYS AREN’T US and Design in connection with its fundraising activities.  Geoffrey Inc., owner of the TOYS “R” US trademark, opposed.  Its successful argument appears to have been that:

” . . . TOYS “R” US mark would become associated in the minds of the public with cruelty to animals, particularly as the NCDL campaigned on emotionally charged and politically contentious issues such as the destruction of dogs and puppy farming . . . The applicant’s use would bring wholly unwanted associations to a mark that had to maintain an appeal to children and parents alike in order to remain successful, even though consumers would know the opponent had nothing to do with cruelty to animals. The fact that the NCDL had laudable objectives and campaigned against the unpleasant activities was likely to be lost on consumers.”

Furthermore, according to IPKat:

NCDL was also found to have registered its mark in bad faith because it adopted a mark that was calculated to bring the TOYS “R” US mark to mind without considering the effect on Geoffrey’s business (even though it had no subjective intent to cause them harm). Such disregard for the consequences of its actions fell short of the standards of acceptable commercial behaviour.

Consider the difference between one advertising campaign using WE AREN’T TOYS with one using TOYS AREN’T US.  The second gets some of its magnetism’ from the mental association to the TOYS “R” US mark but also from the wordplay which nullifies any possibility of commercial association.  This case suggests that the UK Trademark Office recognizes dilution as grounds for opposition and uses a likelihood of, rather than an actual dilution standard.

IPKat concludes with an interesting final queston as to relevance of whether the term in question has become an ingrained part of speech.  As to that, a Google search of the phrase TOYS AREN’T US shows a fair amount of third-party usage.