Remove Artistic Work Remove Branding Remove Fair Use 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).

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

WIPIP 2022, Session 6 (TM)

43(B)log

Summary of current treatment: Although courts have often referred to “expressive” or “artisticworks as shorthand for the scope of Rogers, they have applied it to speech that quali?es Thus, it may not even be descriptive fair use to use the name of the religion from which the dissenters have parted.

article thumbnail

Not Funny! Unanimous SCOTUS in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Holds That Parody Does Not Implicate First Amendment Concerns, But Only Implicates Likelihood of Confusion

LexBlog IP

7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” turns into “The Old No. It owns trademarks in the distinctive Jack Daniel’s bottle and in many of the words and graphics on the label. The trademark law provides that the “noncommercial” use of a mark cannot count as dilution. Though not entirely.

article thumbnail

Jack Daniels v. VIP Products and the Freedom to Parody and Comment in the United States

Kluwer Copyright Blog

In the United States, the doctrine of fair use has been held to permit parody in uses ranging from rap music to children’s books. These fair use rights, the courts have said, have their roots in the U.S. Jack Daniels asserts that the Bad Spaniels toy infringes on its trademark and dilutes its brand.

article thumbnail

Free Speech, Chatting About Friends, Kraken/Crackin’ On AI, & Thinking About Fred & Ginger: Generated Content, Amici Curiae, & A Case About Jack Daniels That Dances Around Trademark Issues And Leaves Some Things To Chew On

LexBlog IP

VIP Products, Jack Daniel’s, the maker of the popular whiskey brand, filed a lawsuit against VIP Products, a company that sells a dog toy shaped like a whiskey barrel. Jack Daniel’s argued that the toy infringed on their trademark, as the shape of the whiskey [bottle] is closely associated with their brand.