I can see where, if you were writing an article about these books, or the publishing industry, you could use it. I have to say, however, that the title doesn't seem that relevant to the subject matter. It would be hard to argue that the title is actually part of the First-Amendment-protected content of the book (presumably it's all original), and not just violating somebody's trademark. Having some experience in writing and publishing, I'd suggest, and I think any agent or publisher would agree, that you simply choose another title. Both the "chicken soup" and "For Dummies" tags aren't very timely anyway, so if your book is new, you should shoot for something fresher.
Unless someone is writing commentary, a journalistic account, or working on a parody (like "The Wind Done Gone" parody of "Gone With the Wind"),* it is almost always smartest to avoid borrowing any rights-protected material and to stick, instead, to your own creative and original material.
Always, but especially when using well-known works in a
commercial venture, you run the very real risk of being sued over your use if you have not acquired permission in advance from the rights-holder.
I agree that choosing a new title would be smart, not from a "timeliness" standpoint (new titles in both book series are still being published regularly) but from a legal risk standpoint. A review of the manuscript by a publishing law professional is recommended prior to publication.
And as a note, fletcherrhoden, there is often no way to tell the content of a book from its title, and there is
no way to tell if the content of the book is "First Amendment protected" until one has actually read and reviewed the content.
*Although eventually judged a parody in court, the publication of "The Wind Done Gone" resulted in a costly and lengthy infringement suit.
