Remove 2007 Remove Cease and Desist Remove Designs Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No. 1125(c)(3)(A). 1125(c)(3)(A).

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Trending Sources

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.

article thumbnail

Meeting of the Minds: The Price of Recklessness: Disgorgement of Pro?ts in a Post-Romag World

The IP Law Blog

In Romag , the Court examined whether a plaintiff in a trademark infringement action is required to show that a defendant willfully infringed the plaintiff’s trademark to obtain a profits award. But even if the Court put aside these issues, its own survey of the case law was less convincing than Fossil would have had the Court believe.