Under trademark law if Rupert Murdoch does not sue now, (even if he does not want to) can can lose the right to in a future case.

If you do not defend your trademark, the courts will take it away.

Don't blame Rupert.

Paul

I'd understand if another news organization were using it. But it's clearly permissible for a satirist to use it.

I think Franklin is in trouble for 2 reasons.

1) As I said, BY LAW Rupert is REQUIRED to sue him. It is not up to Repert to decied if it is OK. The law says you have to go thru the motions. (Look up the case of the 11 year old kid that owned sluggo.com.)

2) The use and placement will be a hot topic in this trial. Fox puts it in red at the bottom of the screen. Franken did that with it on his book cover.

The courts have in the past been much more protective of logo type stuff. If I take a picture of a person on public property I don't need a model release to sell that picture. BUT If I put that picture (think "Girl's Gone Wild.") on the front of a video cassette box and people associate a product with that image NOW I turned that person into a logo and they get money.

**Logo's don't fall under "fair use."

Again, I'm no lawyer but I think they have a fairly strong case.

But my point is, it is unfair to blast Rupert for protecting his trademark when not doing so can cause him to give up rights to it in the future.

Paul

...

---