[libravoter]

based on the cover alone, you have FoxNews personalities on the cover with a statement that the book is "Fair and Balanced".

The burden of proof is on Fox to show someone could be confused. And, while I know what you're trying to say, I bet that in a year you couldn't find five people who honestly would be confused as to this book's agenda.

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.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"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.)