Jack Daniel’s gets Supreme Court showdown against dog toy maker

[SNOWFLAKE]

The case asks the justices to review if a dog toy company can make poop-themed jokes at Jack Daniel’s expense.

WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to wade into a trademark dispute concerning whiskey and poop-themed dog toys.

VIP Products sells a Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy labeled “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” Though shaped like a bottle of the iconic Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whiskey “Old No. 7. Brand,” Bad Spaniels touts its contents as “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.” The problem is Jack Daniel’s isn’t laughing.

https://www.courthousenews.com/jack-daniels-gets-supreme-court-showdown-against-dog-toy-maker/

Definitely an important enough issue for the Supremes to look at, amirite?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

The case asks the justices to review if a dog toy company can make poop-themed jokes at Jack Daniel’s expense.
View attachment 67424207
WASHINGTON (CN) — The Supreme Court agreed Monday to wade into a trademark dispute concerning whiskey and poop-themed dog toys.

VIP Products sells a Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy labeled “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” Though shaped like a bottle of the iconic Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whiskey “Old No. 7. Brand,” Bad Spaniels touts its contents as “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.” The problem is Jack Daniel’s isn’t laughing.

https://www.courthousenews.com/jack-daniels-gets-supreme-court-showdown-against-dog-toy-maker/

Definitely an important enough issue for the Supremes to look at, amirite?

As a matter of law, they can.

Weird "Al" Yankovic has been doing the same thing for more than 40 years with mock music videos.

It is my hope that Jack Daniels is forced to pay the legal expenses for both sides.

 

[ASHES]

Looks like a parody product, and JD is only insulting themselves if they claim market usurpation.

 

[Slartibartfast]

As a matter of law, they can.

Weird "Al" Yankovic has been doing the same thing for more than 40 years with mock music videos.

It is my hope that Jack Daniels is forced to pay the legal expenses for both sides.

Weird Al gets agreements before hand. He doesn’t have to though, from what I understand, he just likes to go about it that way.

 

[Bubber]

As a matter of law, they can.

Weird "Al" Yankovic has been doing the same thing for more than 40 years with mock music videos.

It is my hope that Jack Daniels is forced to pay the legal expenses for both sides.

Can they though? Is trademark law different than intellectual property? I think a company brand is different than a song. I'm not saying JD is right, I'm just saying that I don't think it's the same as Weird Al.

 

[ASHES]

Can they though? Is trademark law different than intellectual property? I think a company brand is different than a song. I'm not saying JD is right, I'm just saying that I don't think it's the same as Weird Al.

Parody is parody.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Parody is parody.

Most of what goes on on DP could be considered "parody"

 

[Bubber]

Parody is parody

Legally speaking, it is not. Legally, parody is fair use of a copyrighted work when it is a humorous form of social commentary and literary criticism in which one work imitates another. I'm not sure a dog toy quite qualifies for that definition, but I'm not a lawyer.

CotmanIP

 

[ASHES]

Legally speaking, it is not. Legally, parody is fair use of a copyrighted work when it is a humorous form of social commentary and literary criticism in which one work imitates another. I'm not sure a dog toy quite qualifies for that definition, but I'm not a lawyer.

CotmanIP

Google "parody dog toys" and prepare to be mind blown.

 

[Bubber]

Google "parody dog toys" and prepare to be mind blown.

Again, I'm not saying that Jack Daniels is right, I'm saying there is a question. Just because many people are doing it doesn't necessarily mean it's OK. To quote ScotusBlog:

Businesses ranging from Campbell Soup to Levi Strauss urged the justices to take the case and clarify when trademark law prohibits a spoof of a company’s brand. If the 9th Circuit’s decision is allowed to stand, the brands say, federal trademark law will be all bark and no bite.

There are already six Friend of the Court Briefs filed and more likely coming so this is an open question that many would like a final answer on. I, for one, am very curious to see how scotus rules on this and why.

 

[SNOWFLAKE]

Again, I'm not saying that Jack Daniels is right, I'm saying there is a question. Just because many people are doing it doesn't necessarily mean it's OK. To quote ScotusBlog:

There are already six Friend of the Court Briefs filed and more likely coming so this is an open question that many would like a final answer on. I, for one, am very curious to see how scotus rules on this and why.

I would be in big shit then. There are companies out there with the trademark SNOWFLAKE (you can look them up on the net), so my taking SNOWFLAKE as a username could see me taken to court????

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Weird Al gets agreements before hand. He doesn’t have to though, from what I understand, he just likes to go about it that way.

This is correct. The only time he didn't was when he made the "Amish Paradise" video.

 

[ColdHardTruth]

Can they though? Is trademark law different than intellectual property? I think a company brand is different than a song. I'm not saying JD is right, I'm just saying that I don't think it's the same as Weird Al.

Per an earlier SCOTUS ruling they can.

PARODY FAIR-USE DEFENSE: OH, PRETTY WOMAN

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees.

 

[Bubber]

Per an earlier SCOTUS ruling they can.

PARODY FAIR-USE DEFENSE: OH, PRETTY WOMAN

The United States Supreme Court in Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) stated in no uncertain terms that a parody as a form of criticism or comment could be fair use of a copyrighted work. Oh, Pretty Woman is a rock ballad written by Roy Orbison and William Dees.

But that is a song. A piece of intellectual property. Is that the same as a brand? Does the court treat it the same?

 

[ColdHardTruth]

But that is a song. A piece of intellectual property. Is that the same as a brand? Does the court treat it the same?

It's a parody. It's allowed. The SCOTUS granting certiorari on this matter is an absurd waste of taxpayer dollars and should cost the responsible SCOTUS member his/her seat.

 

[DiAnna]

Google "parody dog toys" and prepare to be mind blown.

I did! Holy smokes, lol! Too funny.