Woof: Jack Daniels Takes Fight Over Doggy Chew Toy To The Supreme Court

from the squeak-squeak dept

Back in April, we wrote about a trademark dispute between Jack Daniels and VIP Products LLC. At issue was a doggy chew toy made as clear parody of the Jack Daniels bottle, with the branding changed to "Bad Spaniels", along with other parody references. While Jack Daniels had initially won in court when VIP sought declaratory judgement that its use was non-infringing, upon appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th District, that decision was reversed. Key to that ruling was the court's assessment that, due to the parody nature of the product, it was an "expressive work", and the lower court ought to therefore have applied the Rogers test, and vacated an injunction the lower court had applied.

Accordingly, the court held that, as a threshold matter, the Rogers test needed to be applied. Under that test, a trademark infringement plaintiff must show that the defendant’s use of the mark either (1) is “not artistically relevant to the underlying work” or (2) “explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or content of the work.”  Id. at 9 (quoting Gordon, 909 F.3d at 265). The Ninth Circuit vacated the district court’s finding of infringement and remanded for a determination, in the first instance, of whether Jack Daniel’s can satisfy either element of the Rogers test.

But instead of proceeding along those lines, it seems that Jack Daniels instead wants to have a fight at the U.S. Supreme Court over whether a parody dog chew toy truly is expressive. The appeal takes particular umbrage at the lower court's sense of humor.

Because the court of appeals thought [VIP Products’] notorious copying was funny, it held that the company has a First Amendment interest in confusing consumers into believing that Jack Daniel’s sponsors a dog toy spotlighting poop.

The more serious aspects of the filing focus on just where and how Fair Use can be applied in trademark law.

The Lanham Act provides that certain categories of use “shall not be actionable” as dilution. One excluded category is “[a]ny fair use . . . other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A) (emphasis added). The Act identifies parody as a permitted fair use, but it excludes the parodist from liability only so long as the parodist does not use a trademark as its own designation of source. Id. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). The Ninth Circuit did not apply that exclusion here, presumably because it had no basis to reverse the district court’s conclusion that VIP Products used Jack Daniel’s trademarks as a designation of source.

Which is one hell of a presumption. What the court actually did, instead, is recognize the product as parody, deem it expressive because of that, and then indicated that the use of any trade dress or marks therefore didn't act as a source identifier. In other words, the lower court indicated that this ought to be a fight over customer confusion rather than how closely the parody's branding compared with the subject of that parody.

Which is exactly the correct arena for this to be fought in. Because of the clear parody nature of the product, the proper question is will the public be confused into thinking it was buying a product that has any actual association with Jack Daniels. That Jack Daniels doesn't want to have this fight on those grounds should tell you everything you need know.

Hide this

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: chew toy, rogers test, supreme court, trademark
Companies: jack danies, vip products


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    AricTheRed, 24 Sep 2020 @ 8:48pm

    ...well, at least we know what killed her.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2020 @ 12:23am

    Maybe it is more along the lines of they don't want anyone thinking their dark liquid product was made by any bad spaniels.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    MightyMetricBatman, 25 Sep 2020 @ 8:21am

    raises a finger

    I sense the amount of bullshit in the air has increased by one on the fingerintheairbullshitometer. Somehow I suspect the Supreme Court is going to throw this one in the shredder.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    Dan (profile), 25 Sep 2020 @ 9:28am

    Didn't this play out before, somewhere?

    Our high court is reduced to quibbling over whisky and dog poop. {Insert comment about the use of musical instruments and uncontrolled combustion here.}

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Anonymous Coward, 25 Sep 2020 @ 11:06am

    ... parody

    So, apparently the lawyers at Jack Daniels have absolutely no sense of humor... I believe it's fairly common for children to make fun of things by calling them funny names... like in this case.
    Just because you lack a sense of humor or don't find something 'laughable', does not change the fact that was the intention...
    Or are these guys trying to parody lawyers, cause I find their actions very 'laughable' and am having a hard time treating it as anything other than a comedy skit :p

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Special Affiliate Offer

Essential Reading
Techdirt Insider Chat
Recent Stories

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it
Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.