TRADEMARK Case Before US Supreme Court: Jack Daniels v Bad Spaniels (dog toy)

[Nancy OShea]

The case pits the rights of a famous whisky trademark holder (Jack Daniels) against the First Amendment rights of a company that wants to use those marks to sell a "Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker" dog toy that parodies the distiller's brand.

https://www.cnn.com/2023/03/21/politics/jack-daniels-bad-spaniels-dog-toy-supreme-court/index.html

I'll let you decide how this should play out. 

[Jill_C]

Interesting. Indeed, justifying trademark infringement by claiming that it is merely a parody is a slippery slope...ending up in a smelly pile of poo.

[Nancy OShea]

Parody props are what Jimmy Kimmel's and Saturday Night Live's creative teams cook up.  They use in a single segment of an episode.  But they're not actually selling the parody props for profit.  That's a whole other thing.

I can see why Jack Daniels doesn't want their brand associated with a line of dog toys, especially since they're not getting anything in return.  It might have gone another way if VIP had reached out to JD before they launched the dog toy.  But since they didn't, I think VIP's case is going to eat dog poo.