Posted on 11/22/2022 6:25:39 AM PST by Red Badger
The Supreme Court is going to the dogs. The high court on Monday said it would hear a dispute between Jack Daniel’s and a company that sells a parody dog toy that mimics the whiskey brand’s iconic bottle.
Jack Daniel’s had asked the high court to hear its case against Arizona-based VIP Products, which manufactures the Bad Spaniels dog toy. The toy resembles the Jack Daniel’s bottle and label, though the wording is different. The parody label reads “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet,” while the original reads “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey.”
Other major companies, including Campbell’s Soup, Patagonia, and Levi Strauss, have urged the justices to hear the case as it would have important implications on trademark law, the Associated Press notes.
In court filings, attorneys for VIP Products said, "It is ironic that America’s leading distiller of whiskey both lacks a sense of humor and does not recognize when it — and everyone else — has had enough.”
"VIP has never sold whiskey or other comestibles, nor has it used 'Jack Daniel’s' in any way (humorously or not). It merely mimicked enough of the iconic bottle that people would get the joke," the filing continued.
"To be sure, everyone likes a good joke. But VIP’s profit-motivated 'joke' confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill," Lisa Blatt, the lead attorney for Jack Daniel’s, wrote in a court filing.
Blatt went on to criticize the Ninth Circuit for its earlier decision in the case, saying its decision “gives copycats free license to prey on unsuspecting consumers and mark holders” and that “companies like VIP may market funny alcohol-themed rip-offs to children” while others may “sell copies of popular food brands laced with marijuana.”
The Bad Spaniels dog toy is part of VIP’s Silly Squeakers line. The toys resemble liquor, beer, wine, and soda bottles.
In 2008, a court prevented the company from selling a Budweiser parody, ButtWiper, the Associated Press reports.
Now owned by The Hershey Company.......................
I guess it all depends on what Jack Daniles has trademarked or copyrighted.
My ex-wife was the executive assistant to the Corporate Attorney for PACCAR, parent company of Kenworth and Peterbilt trucks. That had all sorts of trademark/copyright infringement issues where Paccar had to approve any product likeness.
She once brought home a ball point pen that was requesting to be approved. It was designed with the “floater window”, like the old Zippo lighters, so that when you tip it up to write, a KW truck would float down the length of the of the pen. The problem with it was the manufacturer placed a car in the window and when the KW floated down it passed the car on the wrong side of the car.
Paccar rejected that likeness.
Same with Hollywood scripts that used their products as part of the script. When you watch a TV show or movie, pay attention to the emblems on the vehicles. If their altered or changed that is because the manufacturer didn’t approve of the way the vehicle was being portrayed in the show.
The coolest thing I remember was they had the original script from the movie Smokey and the Bandit in a glass case in their office. Even though that truck was breaking the law throughout the movie, they allowed it because it showed the performance of the vehicle.
So were the old Wacky Packs of the ‘70s a violation, too?
I notice. I'm a Mustang guy and I look at ads and movies any time a Mustang is portrayed. Many times the iconic Mustang emblem is taped over or is missing altogether. Same with the FORD Blue Oval. Other brands as well, but a Mustang is recognizable no matter what they do to hide its logo. It's stupid......................
And Mad Magazine’s parody ads?...................
They could have put the same phrases on a different shaped bottle...so it’s how you define parody...the shape is THEE most important element of the suit...imho. we’ll see.
When I worked with TAN books a movie maker wanted permission to use our book in a movie. I was asked my opinion and said no because the movie values would run counter to TAN. Years later, I saw our Bible prominently used in an episode of Knight Rider. They didn’t ask, but the quality of the book itself was praised in the episode, so I had no problem with it.
Maybe they should go after the Chinese for infringement as well. They do it in volume.
Fair use?
Hahahhahahaha
I thought parodies were established as being OK a long time ago.
Basically, Jack Daniels is telling everybody that they think their customers are so stupid that they cannot tell the difference between their whisky and dog piss................
== == ==
How about the dog who plays with the fake bottle shape and label, and then sees the real thing?
Will he grab it and run and toss it?
WShy hasn't JD sued these people?
since 1783 is a clue...and JD is a square bottle...this isn’t even close...and it’s the phrases too in the court case
I thought parody was protected speech.🤔
I had a dog once that would drink your beer if you left it alone for a second...........................
Speech is in the ear of the beholder....................
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.