Remove 2020 Remove Artistic Work Remove Designs Remove Fair Use
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).

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.

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

COPYRIGHT AND TATTOOS

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

The section 2(c) of the 1957 Copyright Act of India defines ‘artistic work’ as any work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. So what kind of works, provided they meet the requirement, qualify for copyright protection? In Alexander v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc.,

article thumbnail

Tricky Tattoo

Biswajit Sarkar Copyright Blog

The section 2(c) of the 1957 Copyright Act of India defines ‘artistic work’ as any work that includes engraving, sculpture, painting, or a photograph. So what kind of works, provided they meet the requirement, qualify for copyright protection? In Alexander v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc.,

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

The other issue in Jack Daniel’s was whether VIP could invoke the “noncommercial use of a mark” exemption from dilution liability in 15 U.S.C. 1125(c)(3)(C) by claiming its humorous use of the Jack Daniel’s marks was not pure commercial speech because it poked fun at the company in the Bad Spaniels design.

Trademark 103
article thumbnail

Nike V. Stockx: An Analysis Of The Trademark Infringement In The Metaverse

IP and Legal Filings

Artists are using virtual reality and augmented reality to create previously unimagined artworks. These artistsworks are undeniably unique and would be entitled to appropriate IP protection. Nike itself had taken the initiative to work with StockX primarily due to its faith in the verification process of StockX.