{"id":14095,"date":"2023-02-16T15:53:26","date_gmt":"2023-02-16T20:53:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/?p=14095"},"modified":"2023-02-16T15:53:27","modified_gmt":"2023-02-16T20:53:27","slug":"jack-daniels-vs-bad-spaniels-the-supreme-court-to-rule-on-whether-comic-parody-falls-under-the-lanham-act","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/2023\/02\/16\/jack-daniels-vs-bad-spaniels-the-supreme-court-to-rule-on-whether-comic-parody-falls-under-the-lanham-act\/","title":{"rendered":"Jack Daniel\u2019s vs. Bad Spaniels: The Supreme Court to Rule on Whether Comic Parody Falls Under the Lanham Act\u00a0"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

By Madeline Olds, Staff Writer\u00a0<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/a>
Photo courtesy of unsplash.com<\/em><\/figcaption><\/figure>\n\n\n\n

On March 22, 2023, the country\u2019s largest whiskey company, Jack Daniel\u2019s, will head to the Supreme Court in a challenge against VIP Products LLC, a dog toy company, over one of its dog toys.[1]<\/sup><\/a> The question for the Supreme Court is whether the humorous use of another\u2019s trademark as one\u2019s own commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act\u2019s likelihood-of-confusion analysis or heightened First Amendment protection?[2]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VIP Products LLC, a company in Tennessee, created a plastic dog toy that resembles Jack Daniel\u2019s iconic whiskey bottle.[3]<\/sup><\/a> The toy was labeled \u201cBad Spaniels\u201d and instead of \u201cOld No. 7\u201d and \u201cTennessee Sour Mash Whiskey\u201d like that on Jack Daniel\u2019s bottles, it says \u201cThe Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet.\u201d[4]<\/sup><\/a> Jack Daniel\u2019s saw the product and filed suit against VIP Products LLC.[5]<\/sup><\/a> The district court granted summary judgement and held that Jack Daniel\u2019s trade dress and bottle design were entitled to trademark protection and that VIP was not entitled to either fair-use or First Amendment defenses.[6]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The case then went to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in March 2020.[7]<\/sup><\/a> The Ninth Circuit ruled that the dog toy passed the Rogers Test, a test established in Rogers v Grimaldi<\/em>, which states that a trademark can be used without authorization as long as it meets a minimal level of artistic expression and does not explicitly mislead consumers.[8]<\/sup><\/a> The dog toy, the Ninth Circuit stated, had dog related alterations and was therefore a humorous parody.[9]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

On remand, the district court held that Jack Daniel\u2019s failed to show lack of artistic relevance and explicit misleading.[10]<\/sup><\/a>These decisions led Jack Daniel\u2019s to appeal to the Supreme Court, arguing that \u201cthe Ninth Circuit erroneously grafted the atextual two-part test for First Amendment protection onto the Lanham Act.\u201d[11]<\/sup><\/a> Stating this, Jack Daniel\u2019s argued that the Ninth Circuit granted humorous use of a trademark heightened protection, which was not Congress\u2019s intent, and that the likelihood-of confusion test should have been used instead.[12]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

VIP Productions LLC argued that the Ninth Circuit did not err in its ruling.[13]<\/sup><\/a> The issues are as follows for the Supreme Court to consider: (1) whether humorous use of another\u2019s trademark as one\u2019s own on a commercial product is subject to the Lanham Act\u2019s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125(a)(1)<\/a>, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark-infringement claims; and (2) whether humorous use of another\u2019s mark as one\u2019s own on a commercial product is \u201cnoncommercial\u201d and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of \u201cdilution by tarnishment\u201d under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125(c)(3)(C)<\/a>.[14]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Lanham Act, 15 U.S.C. \u00a7 1125, was enacted by Congress in 1946, to provide a national system of trademark registration and protect the owner of a federally registered mark against the use of similar marks, if such use is likely to result in consumer confusion, or if the dilution of  a famous mark is likely to occur.[15]<\/sup><\/a> The two basic requirements for a mark to be eligible for trademark protection are it must be in use in commerce and it must be distinctive.[16]<\/sup><\/a> Use in commerce means that it must be in use at the time of the application is filed unless there is a good faith intent to use the mark in commerce at a future date.[17]<\/sup><\/a> The distinctive requirement is that the mark must be identifiable and a distinguishable particular good as emanating from one producer or source, not another.[18]<\/sup><\/a> To establish a violation under the Lanham Act, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the plaintiff has a valid and legally protectable mark, the plaintiff owns the mark, and the defendant\u2019s use of the mark to identify goods or services causes a likelihood of confusion.[19]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

The Supreme Court previously rejected Jack Daniel\u2019s suit against VIP Products LLC in January 2021.[20]<\/sup><\/a> However, the Arizona federal district court encouraged the company to seek a new petition.[21]<\/sup><\/a> The petition was granted in November 21, 2022.[22]<\/sup><\/a> There are many opinions as to the Jack Daniel\u2019s case and how it will effect trademark in the future.[23]<\/sup><\/a> The Biden administration backed Jack Daniel\u2019s in a brief filed January 19, 2023 in a brief written by the U.S. Solicitor General.[24]<\/sup><\/a> However, the decision by the Ninth Circuit Court, and the possibility if it being adopted by the Supreme Court, concerned many lawyers as to the application of the Rogers test.[25]<\/sup><\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ultimately, this case will determine the line between humorous parody in products and infringement of trademark. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n\n\n\n

[1]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.oyez.org\/cases\/2022\/22-148<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[2]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[3]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[4]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[5]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.naag.org\/attorney-general-journal\/supreme-court-report-jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-22-148\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[6]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[7]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/ip-law\/high-court-to-review-speech-test-in-jack-daniels-trademark-case<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[8]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[9]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[10]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.naag.org\/attorney-general-journal\/supreme-court-report-jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-22-148\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[11]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[12]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[13]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[14]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.scotusblog.com\/case-files\/cases\/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-2\/<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[15]<\/sup><\/a>https:\/\/www.law.cornell.edu\/wex\/lanham_act#:~:text=The%20Act%20provides%20for%20a,mark%20is%20likely%20to%20occur.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

[16]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[17]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[18]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[19]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[20]<\/sup><\/a> https:\/\/www.reuters.com\/legal\/litigation\/biden-admin-backs-jack-daniels-supreme-court-dog-toy-trademark-fight-2023-01-19\/<\/a>; https:\/\/news.bloomberglaw.com\/ip-law\/high-court-to-review-speech-test-in-jack-daniels-trademark-case<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[21]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[22]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[23]<\/sup><\/a> Id.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[24]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

[25]<\/sup><\/a> Id. <\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

By Madeline Olds, Staff Writer\u00a0 On March 22, 2023, the country\u2019s largest whiskey company, Jack Daniel\u2019s, will head to the Supreme Court in a challenge against VIP Products LLC, a dog toy company, over one of its dog toys.[1] The question for the Supreme Court is whether the humorous use of [\u2026] <\/p>\n

<\/div>\n

Read More<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":14096,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[6],"tags":[3669,108,441,850,3668,448],"class_list":["post-14095","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-juris-blog","tag-fair-use","tag-first-amendment","tag-lanham-act","tag-ninth-circuit","tag-parody-2","tag-trademark"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14095","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=14095"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14095\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14097,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/14095\/revisions\/14097"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/14096"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=14095"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=14095"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/sites.law.duq.edu\/juris\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=14095"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}