Replies

"The burden of proof is on Fox to show someone could be confused."

You don't even need to go there when the goods are different.

"There was a recent case in the south where a sex novelty shop (toys and such, I think) called itself "Victor's Little Secret". Victoria's Secret sued. The court ruled no reasonable person could have thought the two were related."

No. The court ruled that there needed to be evidence provided to support the allegation of confusion. Such evidence regularly appears in trademark infringement litigations. (Note that the VS case both involved selling lingerie, while humor books and news programming are different goods/services.)

Well, whether the products are sold in the same channels of trade is a factor in the analysis, but wouldn't be dispositive here, where there is at least some relationship between the infringing and infringed products (if the book was called something like "The Fair & Balanced Guide to the Middle East," Fox might conceivably have a case). Agree with the other posts, though, that likelihood of confusion (the test of infringement) is extremely far-fetched here.

The Federal Trademark Dilution Act of 1995 indicates that companies can claim infringement if the defendant's use of a trademark (such as corporate names Coca-Cola and Xerox, or their logos) causes "blurring" or "tarnishment" of the trademark in the eyes of consumers. The act makes no clear exception for parodies or satires.*

Proving dilution of a mark: Under the Dilution Act, famous marks are protected against the dilution of the distinctive nature of the mark. There is no need to prove a likelihood of confusion, nor is there any need to show competition between the goods of the plaintiff and the defendant. Therefore, it is possible to use a dilution cause of action against users of the same mark even when the defendant's goods and services bears no relation to the goods or services of the famous mark.

Dilution causes of action are normally brought when the defendant's use of the mark causes either

"Blurring", by which the connection in consumers' minds between the plaintiff's mark and the plaintiff's goods or services is weakened; or
"Tarnishment", which means that the defendant's use is unsavory or unwholesome, or the mark is used in connection with inferior products.

However, the Act makes clear that certain actions will not be subject to the provisions of the Act. Specifically, the Act states that fair use (such as comparative advertising), noncommercial use (such as noncommercial web pages), and all forms of news reporting and news commentary (which would apparently include reporting and commentary appearing on the Internet) would not constitute dilution under the Act.