Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in trademark dispute involving a poop-themed dog toy
Last edited Thu Jun 8, 2023, 03:06 PM - Edit history (1)
Source: CNN Politics
Washington CNN The Supreme Court on Thursday sided with Jack Daniels in a dispute over a poop-themed dog toy that parodies its iconic liquor bottle, ruling that a lower court erred when it said the toy was covered by the First Amendments free speech protections. The unanimous opinion written by Justice Elena Kagan allows the liquor maker to revive its trademark lawsuit against VIP Products in lower courts. In the meantime, the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker toy remains on the market.
At the center of the case is the toy created by VIP Products that is strikingly similar to Jack Daniels bottles. The distiller sued the company over the toy which is replete with scatological humor claiming it violated federal trademark law, which usually centers around how likely a consumer is to confuse an alleged infringement with something produced by the true owner of the mark.
Though the courts decision is a win for Jack Daniels which argued that an appeals court made a mistake when it said the toy was non-commercial and therefore enjoyed constitutional protection the justices declined to grant the distillers request to completely throw out the test an appeals court used when it ruled in favor of the toy, a move that would have given trademark holders wide latitude to sue companies that parody their marks on consumer goods.
Todays opinion is narrow. We do not decide whether the Rogers test is ever appropriate, or how far the noncommercial use exclusion goes, Kagan wrote, adding: The use of a mark does not count as noncommercial just because it parodies, or otherwise comments on, anothers products. We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark. That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection, she said.
Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2023/06/08/politics/jack-daniels-bad-spaniels-supreme-court/index.html
Article updated.
Previous articles -
Though the court's decision is a win for Jack Daniel's - which argued that an appeals court made a mistake when it said the toy was "non-commercial" and therefore enjoyed constitutional protection - the justices declined to grant the distiller's request to completely throw out the test an appeals court used when it ruled in favor of the toy, a move that would have given trademark holders wide latitude to sue companies that parody their marks on consumer goods.
"Today's opinion is narrow. We do not decide whether the Rogers test is ever appropriate, or how far the 'noncommercial use' exclusion goes," Kagan wrote, adding: "The use of a mark does not count as noncommercial just because it parodies, or otherwise comments on, another's products."
"We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods - in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark. That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection," she said.
The ruling was unanimous.
Though the court's decision is a win for Jack Daniel's - which argued that an appeals court erred when it said the parodic toy was "non-commercial" and therefore enjoyed constitutional protection - the justices declined to grant the distiller's request to throw out the test an appeals court used when it ruled in favor of the toy, a move that would have given trademark holders wide latitude to sue companies that parody their marks on consumer goods.
At the center of the case is the toy created by VIP Products that is strikingly similar to Jack Daniel's bottles. The distiller sued the company over the toy - which is replete with scatological humor - claiming it violated federal trademark law, which usually centers around how likely a consumer is to confuse an alleged infringement with something produced by the true owner of the mark.
This story is breaking and will be updated.
Original article -
This story is breaking and will be updated.
IronLionZion
(45,259 posts)GreenWave
(6,494 posts)hippywife
(22,767 posts)Brands not only have a right to protect their trademarks, but an obligation, as well, or else they can lose their protection.
I work in the IP department at a law firm and we have been following this case closely. This was absolutely the correct decision.
I used to track infringement against Starbucks at a previous firm, and you would not believe the volume of attempted knockoffs. Some of it is benign, some not, and some tries to capitalize off the name by pretending to be affiliated (slapping SBux stickers on their own coffee equipment, for example).
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)have just about the same ingredients, and are used for the same purpose. They're the same product with a brand name slapped on. By this ruling a big player could sue the rest and own it all. About the only defense is catsup v. ketchup.
Ok, Heinz me. But no throwing the stuff at the walls. That's politically protected free speech owned by someone else.
BumRushDaShow
(127,312 posts)Apparently it was more a rebuke to the Appellate court and its claim that the (parody) product was "non commercial", justifying the reason to throw the case out. But IMHO, if that poop parody product (using my best alliteration) is being "sold", then obviously it IS "commercial".
So the ruling sends it back to the lower courts to revive the original suit (which could still be decided in favor of the product being parody vs a literal infringement).
hippywife
(22,767 posts)have any application for or protection of brand trademark.
bucolic_frolic
(42,676 posts)No one can just decide to sell ketchup with a Heinz label. They'd be sued in an instant.
hippywife
(22,767 posts)They can all have brand labels on them, they just have to be their own and not someone else's. So of fucking course if they put a Heinz label on it it would be a violation of trademark.
Do you even understand the concept behind IP theft regarding copyright and/or trademark?
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Last edited Fri Jun 9, 2023, 08:29 PM - Edit history (1)
Please do some basic research on I-P and trademarks before speaking again.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)It was obviously a joke and you didn't get it. Doubling down on your self-ownership makes it even that much more hilarious.
Igel
(35,197 posts)Make tweaks to the recipe, patent them. But you're not going to pass FDA definitional muster(d) using tofu, quince and sherry instead of tomatoes and vinegar.
Note that ketchup started off as a British take on something Asian, transmogrified in the Colonies.
https://www.history.com/news/ketchup-surprising-ancient-history if you want the biased version.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ketchup if you want a more wide-ranging version.
"Cultural appropriation" is rather a bad term for this. It's rather like having somebody look at cuneiform or hieratic and produce Paleo-Canaanite or futhark.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)hippywife
(22,767 posts)It's a legitimate and legal ruling according to existing trademark law. If brands don't defend their trademarks, they can legally lose them.
paleotn
(17,781 posts)intheflow
(28,407 posts)I am not one of those people.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Tarc
(10,472 posts)then it wasn't very good in the first place.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)That way you just never know one way or another.
twodogsbarking
(9,308 posts)ForgoTheConsequence
(4,846 posts)Please do some basic research on humor and jokes before speaking again.
Response to ForgoTheConsequence (Reply #20)
hippywife This message was self-deleted by its author.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)Come back when the boys drop, kid.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)Seems as if the irony of using such an immature insult to personally attack someone's maturity is certainly lost on you.
Tarc
(10,472 posts)I don't know, can't tell anymore!
Buh-bye.
Major Nikon
(36,814 posts)paleotn
(17,781 posts)and I'm constantly amazed at how little sense of humor some people possess. Just sayin'.
Anymore, given everything else we have had to deal with, if people don't use /s after a stupid statement, then I take it as presented. It has to be a really good joke, and this one wasn't given how many people feel copyright and trademark rights shouldn't even exist.
Mosby
(16,168 posts)Because I wanted to see how similar it was. There is an entire line of them, covering Johnny walker, Hennessy, Jose quervo gold label and others.