Jack Daniel’s and dog toy company go head to head in US Supreme Court | US News

Jack Daniel’s is involved in a trademark infringement case against VIP Products, which creates a squeaking dog toy that is modelled on the shape of the whiskey brand’s signature bottle – but with a toilet-themed pun. The US Supreme Court will decide whether the toy breaches Jack Daniel’s trademark. VIP Products has also launched a range of Silly Squeaker toys that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. Its latest parody is its “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” toy, which includes the wording: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.”
Jack Daniel’s is arguing that the toys sold by VIP Products are misleading and boast Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill, adding that the company does not want customers to associate its whiskey with dog poop. The toys sell for around $20 each and VIP Products has been selling them since 2014. Jack Daniel’s argues that VIP Products’ parodies are not funny and that the firm is trading on the look of the whiskey brand’s bottle. The toy company’s lawyer, Bennett Cooper, said Jack Daniel’s “seeks to use the Lanham Act to muzzle even VIP Products LLC’s playful dog-toy parody” and its case will be aided by the fact that the US President Joe Biden has given it his support.
The case highlights the grey area that exists around the use of trademarks for comedic purposes. In a bid to shed light on the issue, the court must decide how much protection should be given to those that “rip off” other brands. VIP Products is claiming that the parody should be allowed, as it has been for other brands in the past. During proceedings Justice Elena Kagan stated that she did not find the toy funny, and questioned where the parody lay. However, Justice Samuel Alito led the way in questioning whether the toy could reasonably confuse anyone into thinking it was affiliated with Jack Daniel’s, and suggesting that the toy was an obvious parody.
The Lanham Act is the piece of US legislation that governs trademarks. Enacted in 1949, it protects owners of a federally registered mark against similar marks that could lead to consumer confusion. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the lower court was wrong to side with VIP before the case reached the Supreme Court. While there is an argument for free speech and the right to parody under the First Amendment, brands are keen to protect their trademarked materials and defend the goodwill that they have built up.



Source link