The Supreme Court delved into the complexities of federal trademark law in a case concerning a poop-themed dog toy that resembles a Jack Daniel's bottle, at times erupting into laughter as the justices explored how much protection should be given to parodists that rip off trademarks they don't own. #CNN #News
I think Jack Daniels should chill and have their up tight legal team stand down and get their marketing team onto how this can help them — because it is not a difficult leap to see that imitation is a form of flattery and that dog owners everywhere must tipple away at Jack Daniels (what better than to buy a bottle of Jack and get something for the Dog at the same time? Everyone’s a winner!) – they are missing a trick and a massive sales opportunity here by being idiots.
Agreed! Most parodies are done in good humor and eventually becomes free advertising for the IP’s the parodies are parodying. Let it go, J.D.!
BEST REPLY!
The fact everybody was laughing so hard shows its parody
*it’s
@0z0 , you may be too young to know it, but “it’s” was the one-word introductory opening line of the Monty Python’s Flying Circus tv show. Grammar “not-seeism” can have unintended side-effects!
BOOM! ~ mic drop.
and parody is allowed per law .. case closed.
I too confuse liquor bottles with rubber chew toys. I also wear my pants on my head and only know paint thinner is not a drink because of the warning labels. I am unable to navigate my way through life.
It’s not about the chew toy being confused with the whiskey. It’s about the mockery of the brand harming the reputation of the product. Which, ironically, Jack Daniel’s is harming their own reputation way more than a dog toy ever could by bringing this lawsuit.
Most Democrats confuse what a woman is? 🤷♂️
Fish….you sound like Biden.
@gary quarty There’s dozens of us! Dozens!
Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
I mean come on, it’s doggy chew toy, really?
Now if it were whiskey, or some other form of alcohol or beverages, then they might have something.
Perhaps Jack Daniels should collaborate with the chew toy maker and come up with a flavor to infuse the toy that is highly attractive to dogs (like a canine version of catnip, perhaps) and maybe even has a mild calming or tranquilizing effect. As a long time owner of various large and occasionally mischievous dogs, I have had need of such toys…
@good ‘unchicken flavored….
@good ‘un But that would be a smart business move, taking advantage of free advertising.
@good ‘un LOL.
I think both companies are missing out on a marketing opportunity.
Package the chew toy together with a bottle of Old. 07, and Old .02 and sell it as gift box, along with two glasses each baring the Jack Daniels logo and the Bad Daniels logo, it should appeal to Jack Daniels fans and dog lovers alike, let me know if you agree.
Just another sign of how stupidly ludicrous society is getting when a liquor company is suing a dog chew toy company.
Parody is fair use, the fact that the justices are laughing means they not only recognize the difference immediately, but that nobody could realistically mistake the dog toy brand for the JD brand, and honestly if anything this will probably hurt their sales amongst dog owners BECAUSE of this legal action. I’m not even a dog person, I’m a cat person, and a whiskey aficionado(in my opinion), and this kind of frivolous unwarranted legal action makes me want to look to more pooch friendly brands. Hell, I might even buy one of the toys for my cats, one of them seems to think he’s a dog anyways and we still don’t know why….
@Lee Trainor The dog toy didn’t use any of the same words, nor the same images.
Are you saying Jack Daniels has complete control over the bottle shape or the color black? Or maybe the word Tennessee? Please.
It’s a frivolous lawsuit with absolutely zero merit. No trademarks were violated. None. Throw this nonsense out of court immediately.
@Proto Rhinocerator They have the RIGHT to sue.
@RusDaddy The have the RIGHT to sue. It is up to the laws surrounding trademarks.
@Lee Trainor OK and the chew toy manufacturer has the right to counter-sue.
Based on the legal merits of this case, I would favor the counter-suit.
@Lee Trainor The Chew Toy company parodies other beverages including PepsiCo products. Haven’t seen their lawsuit yet. Parody is covered under the first amendment. There is no confusion between products or measurable damage to the IP holder. This asinine case may have lasting implications for the first amendment. If JD wins, I wonder where the goal posts will be pushed to next.
Honestly this is a super important case, can you imagine the flood gate that would be opened by essentially make parody illegal?
Slander being what it is, I get it.
It is often legal
No more south park.
I hate when I drive all the way to the liquor store to buy alcohol but when I get to my car I feel so stupid realizing my bag is full of chew toys. Chew toys won’t give me a buzz on the way back home like a nice whiskey would
@Wakish “used to live in Florida”
😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂😂
@Mondfischli Yes, I can see the extreme risk of confusion there.. 😂
@Duarteyahoo JESUS NEVER EXISTED
“Corporation in trouble for mold in the surrounding area looks for ways to find new money”
Perhaps they should go into the blue cheese business. Or Roquefort, Stilton, or similar…..
If I was JD…..I would give a free chew toy with every bottle of JD purchased at Xmas. Do NOT mess with dog owners.
Judge: Are they taking themselves too seriously?
The lawyer should have responded… ‘Your honor, we’re in a court of law right now…I would say YES!’
It doesn’t matter who’s in charger etc,etc, we are all born and forced to go school,work and be slaves. If that’s not prostitution, I don’t know what is. They say slavery is gone but it’s still here and that’s it right there. It’s just advance slavery. When is enough enough?
“Does this violate this’s trademark” I think she might be drinking already 😂
1:28 This woman is goofy. The one resembles the other but trademarks don’t give a company complete power over anything that remotely looks like their product.
Other than the word Tennessee (with a slightly different font) none of the words are the same. I’m looking at them side by side 1:42 and the only other commonality I see is “No.” as in short for the word “Number”. Jack Daniels doesn’t have a trademark on “No.” nor “Tennessee”. The dog logo is new, the piping is different. It’s all different. There is no legal case to explain why JD deserves copyright protections on things that vaguely look like their product.
Should all black bottles pay them royalties? Should everyone who owns a spaniel have to pay tribute? This is absurd.
If we’re going to do that Microsoft Windows should get a kick back for every window in your house.
Donald Trump should write a check to McDonalds every year.
Burger King should sue King Charles in England.
The Glacier Bay toilet company should sue both Greenland and the district of Flushing, Queens, New York.
Completely absurd.
Jack Daniels should be charged for filing a frivolous law suit. This is ridiculous.
Jack Daniels has no case here , I can’t possibly take alcohol seriously , people generally drink alcohol to get a booze and have a laugh , not to get serious or sober , so the jack Daniels argument is simply delirious e , I like the dog chew toy , its funny , its cool , its a free country , I like that toy , they did not do anything wrong , jack Daniels has no case , stop acting like kids , grow up and stop wasting the courts time , and my message to the CEO of the company is pull up your pants and stop acting like a drunk , your privilege does not give you more rights , so my message to the dog company making these chew toys , dude I love your product , its funny , make one about vodka , make one about bud light , ect… keep it up dude , I like the product , good job
Jack Daniel’s is basically saying the consumer is too dumb to tell the difference between a drink and a toy.
Jack Daniels has no case here , I can’t possibly take alcohol seriously , people generally drink alcohol to get a booze and have a laugh , not to get serious or sober , so the jack Daniels argument is simply delirious e , I like the dog chew toy , its funny , its cool , its a free country , I like that toy , they did not do anything wrong , jack Daniels has no case , stop acting like kids , grow up and stop wasting the courts time , and my message to the CEO of the company is pull up your pants and stop acting like a drunk , maybe buy a jack Daniels parody belt , your privilege does not give you more rights , so my message to the dog company making these chew toys , dude I love your product , its funny , make one about vodka , make one about bud light , ect… keep it up dude , I like the product , good job
Good argument. Most people wouldn’t be able to identify it
Apple is really notorious for such lawsuits as I recall, going after smoothie shops and stuff that have the word apple in them. And usually bully the companies into submission with legal fees.
It’s not about the consumer it’s about protecting your brand from blatant copyright infringement. People fail to realize that it’s possible they already have contracts with outside companies to do stuff like this, which would hurt those agreements. Allowing a 3rd party company to use your likeness for free isn’t acceptable. Not to mention the company’s excuse is dumb af “parody of brands that take themselves too seriously” what does that even mean lmao
@SinclairCupcake Jack Daniels is going to war against the definition of parody. I find its the only reason why they took it to SCOTUS rather than a civic court.
Most people wouldn’t have taken it this far because they know the attention press would damage their brand’s image for years if not decades.
Jack Daniel’s probably benefits from free advertising when people see the dog toy. The toy reminds people that JD is the name brand for whiskey.
Other whiskey brands are available.
@Hypsyzygy : Yes, but what is the point that you’re trying to make?
The fact that this is in the Supreme Court is an absolute joke.
This case should have never been seen in any court. It’s obviously a joke product that competes with Jack Daniel’s in absolutely no way.
Jack Daniels has no case here , I can’t possibly take alcohol seriously , people generally drink alcohol to get a booze and have a laugh , not to get serious or sober , so the jack Daniels argument is simply delirious e , I like the dog chew toy , its funny , its cool , its a free country , I like that toy , they did not do anything wrong , jack Daniels has no case , stop acting like kids , grow up and stop wasting the courts time , and my message to the CEO of the company is pull up your pants and stop acting like a drunk , your privilege does not give you more rights , so my message to the dog company making these chew toys , dude I love your product , its funny , make one about vodka , make one about bud light , ect… keep it up dude , I like the product , good job .
@Sina Bagheri Sarvestani these things have been around for many years. My dog has the O’drools and Heinisniffin’ beer bottle toys.
Much more important topic than the reclassification of Marijuana to prevent more pointless arrests and splitting up families for simple possession.
I see Jack Daniel parody t-shirts all the time everything from restaurants to gag gifts with some kind of obscene humor.
Jack Daniels has no case here , I can’t possibly take alcohol seriously , people generally drink alcohol to get a booze and have a laugh , not to get serious or sober , so the jack Daniels argument is simply delirious e , I like the dog chew toy , its funny , its cool , its a free country , I like that toy , they did not do anything wrong , jack Daniels has no case , stop acting like kids , grow up and stop wasting the courts time , and my message to the CEO of the company is pull up your pants and stop acting like a drunk , your privilege does not give you more rights , so my message to the dog company making these chew toys , dude I love your product , its funny , make one about vodka , make one about bud light , ect… keep it up dude , I like the product , good job
The greatest part about this is that they are damaging their own reputation more than this chew toy could have ever done. They’re shooting themselves in the foot while looking like humorless jerks.
like i would welcome any parody about my company!! free advertisement !!! so silly that this is using up any court’s time !!!!
@Trans- solid Wookie and I am going to buy less 😀
@YesItsReallyKeith they don’t exactly need the advertising. End of the day it is clearly infringing on their copyright
They should have collaborated and combined the two products in a fun package……FOR MEN WHO LOVE THEIR WHISKEY AND THEIR DOGS TOO
We have a lot of dog toys that are parodies of real products. It’s hilarious and we like the real products as well but if companies are going to sue about it, I think it hurts them
From my prospective, this dog toy actually makes me think of Jack Daniel’s when I normally wouldn’t have….
Not in any sort of negative way
It’s really sad that the US Supreme Court has to get involved in something so silly when there are so many really important things they should be working on instead.
To Jack Daniels I say: “Bad dog!”