Fair and Balanced

[Frank Abate]

Arnold Z pointed out in a longish post earlier today (not cc'd here) that
this case of Fox and Franken hinges on the Fox trademark of "Fair and
Balanced".  Now totally apart from whether that is a true statement, or from
whether Franken is accurate, or is protected from the Fox challenge because
what he is doing is a parody, I would like to bring up the issue of the
trademark and service mark status on the lists, for comments.

It seems that in recent years there has been much broader claiming and
granting of trademark and service mark status for natural phrases drawn from
the language.  That is, not for names or slogans that specifically refer to
a product or company by name, but for simple phrases that a company wants to
reserve exclusively for ITS product or service.  You need not look far for
examples.  The "Fair and Balanced" used by Fox is one, but others include:

Home Depot: You can do it.  We can help.

CVS pharmacies: Life to the fullest.

There are many more like these, some not seeming to have any sort of clear
connection to the company or the service it provides.  Unlike trademarks for
a product or company NAME, or marks on slogans that contain a name or at
least allude to a special or unique service, these "generic" service-marked
phrases have set a very bad precedent, it seems to me, in allowing
corporations exclusive use of some bit of the natural language for
commercial purposes.  This may or may not be a new thing (I suspect it IS
pretty new), but in either case allowing a service mark claim on such
language puts ownership rights on phrases that are a natural combination of
everyday words, fully in keeping with the idiomaticity of the language.
This seems to me a wrong road to have gone down, and would that the trend
could be halted if not reversed.

I am agin anybody having any sort of ownership claim on what seem to me to
be just plain words and phrases.  That is not fair or balanced.

Frank Abate