Supreme Court sides with Jack Daniel's in trademark battle over poop-themed dog ... trends now
The Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniels and against a pet company selling poop themed dog toys in the shape of the brand's iconic whiskey bottle on Thursday, in a trademark dispute that attracted the attention of the nation’s most recognized brands.
Jack Daniel's Properties Inc, owned by Brown-Forman Corp, argued that the toy, which resembles the distiller's widely recognized black-label whiskey bottle but replaces the label with 'Bad Spaniels', could confuse consumers about who created the product and potentially tarnish the company name.
The Arizona based dog toy company, 'VIP Products,' defended themselves, claiming the toy is a 'parody,' and qualifies as an 'expressive work.' which is protected by the US Constitution's First Amendment and entitled to free speech under the law.
The whiskey maker in return said that there is a likelihood of confusion, meaning the poop themed product violated trademark law.
In a unanimous 9-1 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against VIP Products, and rejected the ruling from a federal appeals court that had backed the dog toy company and sent the case back to a lower court for additional review.
The product remains on shelves, until a decision is made at a district court level, which according to some experts, might be more difficult than it seems - if consumers are aware the product is a parody and not affiliated with the whiskey brand.
VIP Products who makes whiskey shaped poo-themed dog toys, is at the center of a trademark dispute that the US Supreme Court ruled against on Thursday in a case that could redefine how the judiciary applies constitutional free speech rights to trademark law
A dog toy called Bad Spaniels, shaped like a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle will remain on shelves, until a decision is made at a district court level
Justice Elena Kagan, who authored the decision, said that VIP's alleged infringement of the Jack Daniel's trademark 'falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection.'
The Lanham Act, is the law which prohibits using a trademark in a way that is likely to cause confusion about its origin, and Jack Daniels claimed the dog toy likely confused consumers and therefore infringed on their copyright.
'We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods — in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark,' Kagan wrote.
The Supreme Court said lower courts must now consider whether VIP Products' dog toys look too similar to the iconic Jack Daniels bottle, causing confusion for consumers.
'A parody must 'conjure up' 'enough original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable,'' Kagan wrote. 'Yet to succeed, the parody must also create contrasts, so that its message of ridicule or pointed humor comes clear.'
'And once that is done (if that is done), a parody is not often likely to create confusion. Self-deprecation is one thing; self-mockery far less ordinary,' she added.
