Jack Daniel’s has won a trademark dispute over Bad Spaniels, a chewy dog toy maker which mimicked the appearance of the famous liquor brand’s packaging.
The Supreme Court’s ruling is a blow to VIP Products LLC, the maker of the “Bad Spaniels” toy that features poop jokes instead of Jack Daniel’s original labeling.
The case examined the boundaries of trademark rights and First Amendment claims.
Read More: Merck sues US government over new law allowing Medicare to negotiate drug prices
A federal appeals court had previously declared Jack Daniel’s couldn’t protect its trademarks against VIP Products, asserting the toy was an expressive work deserving free-speech protection.
But Justice Elena Kagan, authoring the court’s opinion, described the ruling as “narrow.”
The Supreme Court overturned the lower court’s decision that deemed the chew toy as an expressive work safeguarded by the First Amendment.
The court also determined the Rogers test, which permits trademark use in expressive works if artistically relevant, didn’t apply in this case.
Read More: Delta Air Lines faces class action lawsuit over carbon-neutral claims
The case will now return to the lower courts, providing Jack Daniel’s another opportunity to pursue its claims against VIP Products.
The focus will shift to whether consumers will likely be confused regarding the product’s association with Jack Daniel’s.
Kagan said: “The only question in this suit going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”
She noted confusion over the source of a product is a core concern in trademark law, as it directly opposes the law’s goals of facilitating consumer choice and safeguarding producers’ reputations.
Need Career Advice? Get employment skills advice at all levels of your career
Jack Daniel’s argued under the U.S. Lanham Act, trademark owners are entitled to protection against goods that may confuse consumers, without exceptions for expressive works.
The Biden administration supported Jack Daniel’s position.
This decision could make it easier for trademark holders to take legal action against companies that parody their trademarks on commercial products.
