Jack Daniel's Is Suing A Dog Toy Manufacturer Over Their 'Bad Spaniels' Bottle
Some of the country's most important legal cases have been decided in the Supreme Court, so imagine our surprise when we saw that a dispute between Jack Daniel's whiskey and a dog toy maker was making its way to the highest court in the land.
Although the case between Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. and VIP Products LLC (makers of Silly Squeakers dog toys) might seem a bit flippant, the lawsuit raises big questions about brands' First Amendment rights and trademark infringement.
The companies' upcoming appearance in the Supreme Court comes after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of VIP in 2020. The dog toy at the center of the case is in the shape of a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle and includes the words "Bad Spaniels" and "The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet" in the same color and font as the label on Jack's Daniel's Old No. 7 whiskey.
According to the whiskey brand, the similarities between the two products could be misleading to consumers.
"VIP sells products mimicking Jack Daniel's iconic marks and trade dress that mislead consumers, profit from Jack Daniel's hard-earned goodwill, and associate Jack Daniel's whiskey with excrement," reads Jack Daniel's brief, according to ABC News.
Jack Daniel's has even garnered the support of several popular brands, including Nike, Inc., Campbell Soup Company, Levi Strauss & Co., and American Apparel & Footwear Association. All of the brands mentioned filed briefs in favor of Jack Daniel's argument.
ABC News reports that Campbell Soup Company found itself in a similar predicament years ago, defending Godiva Chocolatier (a brand it previously owned) against the makers of the Dogiva dog toy.
"If the case were litigated today, Grey would undoubtedly argue that DOGIVA was intended to be a humorous commentary on the GODIVA® brand and thus was an expressive work, and Ninth Circuit precedent would require the district court to impose a heightened burden on Campbell Soup to show that the Rogers test was satisfied," read the brief made on behalf of Campbells.
For VIP, they're standing behind freedom of speech and also "freedom to mock." A brief from the dog toy company states that "This case is not a dispute between two trademarks on commercial products. VIP uses a pretend trademark and pretend trade on a pretend label on a pretend bottle full of pretend contents."
How will this turn out? We'll just have to wait until late June to hear the court's decision.
You Might Also Like
