Fact: Chuck Norris' lawsuit is ridiculous and will only lead to a revised and updated edition.

Fact: Chuck Norris being unable to take a joke lend credence to the notion that he *is* a joke.

Chuck Norris may be a major tool for bringing this suit, but I think I'm going to buy that book- it looks funny as hell.

Chuck Norris doesn't read books.

He stares them down until he gets the information he wants.

Considering that Chuck owns a number of trademarks related to his name including "Chuck Norris Facts", it's a fairly straight forward suit.

I think this is more about someone taking material that they did not create, using a celebrity's name, from a public source and attempting to copyright it and make money from it. I understand he had no problem with the stuff when it was circulated on the net, but once someone takes your name and tries to make money off it, yeah, I'd have a problem too.

I actually understand why he is suing..they are using his name and likeness without his permission. But I still think that it is going to just spawn more books.

He must operating under the common undergrad assumption of "It's in a book so it must be true!"

I can't say I blame him for suing...it's one thing to have the list online for free, but to try to SELL the book without permission was taking an obvious risk. I don't think Chuck had anything against the list itself; he read some of the "facts" on a tv show himself.

This sounds more like a defend your copyright or lose it kind of case.

This lawsuit isn't about the jokes themselves. It's about suing the author and the publisher for unauthorized use (and profit) of Chuck Norris' name. The author basically copied/pasted all the Chuck Norris jokes from the internet, published a book, and didn't give credit/money to everyone that he got the jokes from.

After all, Chuck Norris does take all this in good humor..

Chuck Norris responded to the Chuck Norris Facts on his official website, chucknorris.com, with a statement. He was generally surprised and flattered by the attention. Admitting some of the statements were indeed humorous, he tries not to take any of them seriously, and he hopes that such statements will interest people in real facts about Chuck Norris contained in his literary works.

And Norris recently did a Mountain Dew commercial that spoofs this internet fame.

Damn it you mean Chuck did not create the giraffe, and all this time I have been using that fact against those ignorant evolutionists.

1) Chuck Norris jokes were never funny.

2) Chuck Norris is a bat shit crazy conservative.

3) I thought crazy conservatives hated frivolous lawsuits.

4) People use peoples name and likeness ALL THE TIME EVERYWHERE for the sake of a joke. TV shows (that sell advertising), other satirical books (that are sold), websites (that sell advertising/profit from), Magazines (that you buy and that sell advertising).

How is this any different? It sounds to me like he is upset that he isn't able to cash in on book, and he is going to "settle" for a percentage. Cry me a fucking river of your cancer curing tears, you bag of dicks.

5) I hate Chuck Norris.

"book's title would mislead readers into thinking the facts were true."

I guess he is applying his own Christian Conservative lack of intellectual curiosity and willingness to believe anything written in a book to everyone else.

Sounds like a publicity stunt to me.

@thisaintsweettea: Protecting one's trademark is not frivolous.

@THISAINTSWEETTEA

1. You have a lot of bitterness locked up.
2. You're annoying for trying to turn this into a Christian/Non-Christian argument.
3. When people's images are used in TV shows, satirical books, etc, they are often mentioned once or twice and then forgotten. The people at ChuckNorrisFacts.com were trying to make money solely on Chuck Norris' imaged/"factual" image.
4. You have a lot of bitterness locked up. Seek counseling.

@trollkiller:

Chuck Norris has a trademark on the concept of a fist hiding behind his beard instead of a chin? He has a trademark on absurd nonsense written about himself on countless forums and emails forwarded hundreds of times by frat boys?

What trademark? Can you trademark a caricatcher(sp?) of yourself? Can you trademark OBVIOUSLY inaccurate things? I'm pretty sure every famous person ever should start filing lawsuits against SNL, Mad TV, South Park, The Soup on E!, just to name a few.

@jgambleii: How do i make the eyes rolling emoticon appear?

Clearly the overzealous hate in my previous post was done in a somewhat factitious tone. Though, I think I had my "factitious lock" key off, so I apologize.

I didn't try to "turn this into" anything, I mentioned his Christian conservative views, which, if you have ever read anything he has written in the realm of politics (which his are heavily anchored in religion), you would agree he is not intellectually curious and will indubitably believe anything he is told/reads. I mean hell; he is backing a guy who wants to quarantine people with aids and abolish the IRS and replace it with a "Sales Tax Bureau".

@thisaintsweettea: That's your opinion, I cannot stand Chuck Norris, I think he's a little more than just a prick, but those jokes are funny.

And right now you're coming across as a douche, by applying that you're better and smarter than him.

@thisaintsweettea: A caricature of your likeness is still using your likeness.

On the internet people were making the jokes with no profit to be gained. Now some people are trying to cash in on someone else's likeness and person.

I agree with jgambleii, you're turning this into a pro/anti christian rant.

@thisaintsweettea: In a way, yes he does have those trademarks. The particularly relevant ones which he has registered include:

CHUCK NORRIS IS ... "THE FACT"
CHUCK NORRIS FACTS

It is required by trademark law to defend it from any unauthorised use otherwise you may lose it or it may become generic. Yes people may consider it to be satire or parody but that has little bearing in trademark law. Particularly when there is potential to damage the good will in trademark by in this instance associating the mark with rascist jokes. You should note that many people who do satire and parody professionally such as Weird Al actually ask permission first. This is the crux of the case, Chuck is claiming that they never asked permission.

@jgambleii: Whoa whoa whoa -- Conservative does not Equal Christian. THISAINTSWEETTEA never brought up religion - only politics. There are plenty of Liberal Christians and Non-Christian Conservatives. The last thing we need to do is open up the religion can of worms -- especially when it wasn't anyone's intent to bring it up. :P

@TRAE - Read again.

BY THISAINTSWEETTEA AT 03:27 PM

"book's title would mislead readers into thinking the facts were true."

I guess he is applying his own Christian Conservative lack of intellectual curiosity and willingness to believe anything written in a book to everyone else.

Before the Boogeyman goes to bed at night, he checks under his bed.... for Chuck Norris!

hey the guy is at best a B-rate actor in D-rate films (or vice versa), but the jokes are funny, c'mon...!

Having said that, my first gut instinct is that he'd have the right to sue over the for-profit book using his likeness as the sole selling point.

But then again, if he does have that right... what about all the stars that have "unofficial" biographies written about them? Couldn't they sue off the same sort of line of thought? iCon, the "unofficial" biography of Steve Jobs? He hated that book, kept it out of Apple's stores. But he didn't sue to stop its publication. Couldn't he have? If so, why not?

And if not, then why couldn't he have, but Chuck can? What's the delineating factor? I'm asking honestly, I'd like to know.

Wow, so much for Chuck Norris being the biggest badass ever.

Yes, he has no choice but to sue. If he does not he risks his brand or copyright from becoming "watered down" and then not be able to uphold it in the future. Common principle of copyright law.

But it looks like a win win to me. Chuck Norris is a dipshit. But this site and book immortalize him. The stuff if hilarious. But not really at his expense. More like making him come off like Superman. Without the suit we would have never heard of the site or book. And now your right - everyone will go buy that book.

Just take a look at the top 100 facts about Chuck on that site. It's funnier than hell. And flattering at the same time.

I was hoping he was suing for being exposed as a dipshit conservative with a LAME MMA league and even lamer fitness scams!

@thisaintsweettea: The blurb from the book website reads as follows
[4q.cc]
"The Truth About CHUCK NORRIS is slampacked with 20 illustrations and 400 hard-hitting, unapologetic facts about the world's greatest martial arts master and Texas Ranger! In it, you will learn:

* Why Chuck Norris sleeps with a night light

* Why Chuck Norris has beef with 'Law and Order'

* Why Chuck Norris is never late

* How Chuck Norris extracts knowledge from the books he owns"

Nothing on the cover or the blurb lets the consumer know that this is a collection of parody "facts".

The book cover uses his name and image, both are trademarked. He has every right to protect his trademark.

Wait, someone's making a book of Chuck Norris jokes that have been on the internet for years?
Hell yeah he should sue. Penguin's trying to profit off countless consumers for something they can log on to [chucknorrisjokes.com] for free.

Is it actually going to be possible that Chuck may LOSE this case? O.o

@trollkiller: At the same time, if the book is obviously a parody, there may be nothing he can do.

@causticitty: The book front cover and the blurb from the website does not readily show it is a parody.

Even if Chuck loses the case it will still show him defending the trademark. Just the defense of the trademark keeps it from going into common use. There is a legal term for this but I can't think of it at the moment.

who gives a shit?

Why the hell is Chuck Norris more popular now than when he was actually making movies???

Fact: Chuck Norris sleeps with a Tim Tebow nightlight.

Fact: Chuck Norris sleeps in Tim Tebow pajamas.

*Chuck Norris can be substituted with Superman. It just kinda works like that...

Fact: We all know these are all jokes. Most of it is not funny. Some of it is. Let him sue. Who cares...

I think it's ridiculous that, bearing his name or not, Chuck Norris can trademark something that he didn't come up with and existed long before he became aware of it.

Just plug in Vin Diesel or whoever else they had fact generators for and it'll probably be fine.

I love the book - and it has been selling INCREDIBLY well at the bookstore I work at. We hardly even have to try - people see it and immediately want to buy it ( I kept some at the counter as last minute stocking stuffers - workek like a charm). Everyone I work with has become somewhat obsessed with it. I'd say in the three weeks or so we've had it in, we've probabaly sold at least 70 copies.

The book is a paraody and should be protected work. The book is so outlandish it can't possibly be taken seriously. This won't go far in court.

Fact: Parody is protected by the First Amendment.
Fact: The Supreme Court upheld that in the Flynt vs. Falwell case.
Fact: Chuck Norris is just pissed off he didn't think of the book of Chuck Norris "facts" first & make all the money!

Chuck Norris is turning out to be quite the dickhead after all... I thought this bore pointing out for those who didn't realize that when he got hired to "write" for the World Net Daily.

Seriously, people, think about this, if you're for free speach and all that, you should be SUPPORTING this... the people who published this book didn't WRITE anything... they surfed to the website that these jokes were on, copy and pasted it, and added a few pictures. In other words, this entire book is blatent plagerism. Keep in mind, chuck isn't suing the web site, and probobly never will, considering he's already given his (fairly positive) opinion on it. All he's sueing are the assholes who are trying to make a quick buck off something that a bunch of other people created and intended to be freely available.

Click the link and read the article... ""Defendants have misappropriated and exploited Mr. Norris's name and likeness without authorization for their own commercial profit," said the lawsuit." He's not suing them for using his name and such in these jokes, he's suing them for profiting off of said use of his name. Considering that the people who actually WROTE these jokes arn't seeing a dime of that money, I would have to agree with him, they need to stop.

i wish you guys would leave my hero alone.....i wanna be like him when ,or if, i grow up.............

@mrstu: It isn't plagiarism, per se: Ian Spector, who is credited as the author, is the guy who created the original site. In essence, he's the editor of this book, but the site was his originally and he explains the whole origins in his forward (and also about a few run in and even a meeting with Chuck, so this lawsuit is further confusing). While he doesn't give creditto everyone who created them (he may not even know every one!) he does acknowledge the site as the origin. So far, this hasn't really impacted sales, either. I think I've seen one guy in my store question buying when he can go to the site for free (maybe because these are the 400 best?)

It's funny, too: yesterday was the first time I actually had a customer look at it and go, "Are these all true?" My response was, "Unless Chuck Norris really was the Fourth Wise Man, bringing Baby Jesus the gift of beard, then no, none of them are."

This is just sad. If a book was written about me like that, I would be cracking up.

"Some of the 'facts' in the book are racist, lewd or portray Mr. Norris as engaged in illegal activities," the lawsuit alleges.

O Rly?

@thisaintsweettea: that's 'pseudoChristian' conservative, you flamin' liberal. call it for what it is, and stop bashing my Lord and Savior on His birthday (jk, this is actually a pagan holiday celebrating winter solstice or the birth of the sun god Mithra). but seriously, re-read the purported teachings of Christ, and recognize that if someone calls them self a Buddhist but acts no way like Buddha purportedly acted, than they're NOT a Buddhist. Get it??

@bobhope2112: "Fact: Chuck Norris being unable to take a joke lend credence to the notion that he *is* a joke." LOL! I'm thinking you don't have the balls to deliver that comment in person.

@Greasy Thumb Guzik:

There's a fine line there.

The Hustler Campari ad was simply a one-page parody. Hustler made no money expressly from the use of Jerry Falwell's name and likeness.

This book is designed expressly to make money from Chuck Norris's name and likeness. Norris is due compensation from the sale of the book, and the book cannot be sold without his permission.

The obvious question here is: "Why Chuck Norris and not George W. Bush," given the number of "Bushisms" books available.

The answer to that is rather complex, but the simple answer is that the names and likenesses of public figures (in the sense of public government, not in the sense of 'seen frequently in public,' as is used for celebrities) are held in the public trust - the right to speak for or against the government cannot be abridged. The rights to the names and likenesses of public figures return to those individuals upon the expiration of their terms in office, and are protected with regard to both the time prior to commencement of and post completion of their public service.

I don't know the facts surrounding ownership of the website and how the jokes were obtained, but I don't really see it is a plagiarizing, more like compiling a list.
There are books about lists all the time.
I guess citing the author of the content would be important. Again, I'm not educated on the matter.

As far as Chuck Norris' opinion on the jokes, forget the mountain dew commercial, here's a video of him actually acknowledging them, not only that, he has a favorite. So I think this is definitely about someone making money off of his name and image.

[www.youtube.com]