HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Memo to Marian Wright Edelman: Don't Sue Dubya!

Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, Aug. 1, 2000, at 6:41 PM ET

U.S. News' "Washington Whispers" column reports this week that the Children's Defense Fund "is considering legal action if Bush doesn't drop" his use of the phrase "Leave no child behind," the official theme of the Republican convention's opening night. "Leave no child behind" has been CDF's registered trademark since 1994. President and founder Marian Wright Edelman sounded a slightly more conciliatory note in a New York Times op-ed published July 29 (the day U.S. News' "Whispers" column hit the Web):

RSS

If plagiarism is the sincerest form of flattery, I am more than happy to be flattered that the theme of the Republican National Convention's opening night on Monday is "Leave No Child Behind"--the four words that constitute the Children's Defense Fund's trademark. ... "Leave No Child Behind" should be more than the theme for an evening at a convention or even a trademark for an organization.

Apparently, though, CDF is still mulling that lawsuit. Susanne Martinez, senior vice president for policy at CDF, confirmed to Chatterbox: "We've asked them both [the Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee] to stop using the trademark phrase. ... We've asked them to cease and desist." CDF, she said, is now conferring with its lawyers. Chatterbox finds this stance absurd. CDF is a nonprofit organization, and in order to maintain its tax exemption it's supposed to be nonpartisan. The spirit of this prohibition is violated by Washington think tanks all the time, of course--most glaringly by the American Enterprise Institute's recent Hillary Clinton hatefest. But for CDF to claim trademark infringement by the Republicans would rather starkly call into question whether CDF was in business to help children or to screw Republicans. Even granting that Bush and the Republicans are only pretending to appropriate CDF's activist agenda, it's hard to see how CDF can have the right to tell politicians what phrases they may or may not use. (Chatterbox doesn't remember hearing cries of copyright infringement in 1984 when Walter Mondale appropriated "Where's the Beef?") Chatterbox strongly suspects the Republicans would be able to demonstrate that CDF has never minded particularly when Democrats have appropriated CDF's slogan. (Martinez says, "We don't know of any Democrats that have used the phrase," but Chatterbox will bet she hasn't looked very hard.)

A more creative way for CDF to protest would be to generate derogatory anagrams for "Leave no child behind" and to suggest that these reveal the Republicans' (though not, of course, CDF's) true meaning. Availing himself of the Anagram Genius Server, Chatterbox has done just that. Here are some of the better selections:

Oh Hell! Bind deviance
Oh! Vile and idle bench.
Oh! Chained, vile blend.
Oh! Evil bled nice hand
Hello! Vice and behind.
Oh! Leech bland divine.

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Reader Response from The Fray:

Actually, I thought "Leave no child behind" was pretty lame as a convention theme. Come to find out, it's the trademarked slogan of the Chidren's Defense Fund. What the heck were they thinking down there inside the Beltway at the CDF? Not that the sentiment isn't a good one. But there is no zest, no sting, no punch or life to it. It's not even colloquial; who says, "leave no" whatever?" Sounds like Shakespeare ("Leave not thy issue after thee"). Save The Children: now that's a slogan and a name. What about Defend The Children? Or Every Child Counts. At least, put it affirmatively: Help every child. Surely the GOP's plagiarism is a blessing in disguise for Marion Wright Edelman. She can graciously give the line to the Republicans and be rid of it for good.

--Publius

(To reply, click here.)

Surely you aren't meaning to imply that the trademark laws only apply to non-political groups? Surely a trademark holder should be able to defend against any violator, even political ones? The argument that a non-profit can only defend a trademark against use by non-political groups is patently absurd. It implies that any political group could with impunity violate any and all rights (trademark, copyright, patent, property...) of any non-profit with absolute immunity.

--Eric

(To reply, click here.)

The CDF has a reasonable case. The phrase is known to be a trademark of the CDF, so voters might reasonably assume that the CDF gave permission to use the phrase, and would also assume that permission was given because the CDF approves of the Republicans' policies. There is no parallel to Mondale's use of "where's the beef," which was in the spirit of parody, and thus a fair use. The Republicans make a regular practice of appropriating copyright for their purposes. In 1984, it was Springsteen's Born in the USA. In 1988, Bobby McFerrin's Don't Worry, Be Happy. Both songwriters objected to use of their music, and the Republicans desisted.

--Arthur Stock

(To reply, click here.)

You're right that the CDF's apparent attempt to get Bush from uttering "leave no child behind" is absurd. But the attempt is not just absurd; it is futile as well, at least under federal trademark law. The Lanham Act (the federal trademark statute) only protects against uses of trademarked phrases "in commerce." Put simply, Bush isn't using the phrase "in commerce"; he's using it in politics.

--Ben Sheffner

(To reply, click here.)

(8/2)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES