Jack Daniel’s v. Bad Spaniels: The Case of Whiskey, Dog Toys, and Trademarks

What Happened?

Jack Daniel’s, the famous whiskey brand, found itself in an unusual legal battle against VIP Products, the maker of a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels.” VIP’s toy mimicked Jack Daniel’s iconic bottle design, replacing key elements with humorous parodies. Instead of “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy proclaimed, “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet,” complete with faux filigree and a square bottle shape.

Jack Daniel’s didn’t find the joke funny. They argued that the toy infringed on their trademarks and diluted their brand. On the other hand, VIP claimed their toy was a parody, protected under the First Amendment. After years of legal wrangling, the case landed before the Supreme Court.

Let’s break down the key issues and lessons from this quirky yet significant trademark dispute.

Jack Daniel’s Props. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, at 149 (2023)

Jack Daniel’s Props. v. VIP Prods. LLC, 599 U.S. 140, at 149 (2023)

Analyzing the Issues

Does the Rogers Test Apply Here?

• The Rogers test, often used in cases involving expressive works like movies or books, limits trademark claims unless the use of the mark has no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads consumers. VIP argued the toy was an expressive parody, so the Rogers test should protect them.

Supreme Court’s Take: Not so fast. The Court ruled that the Rogers test doesn’t apply when a trademark is used as a source identifier—essentially when it tells consumers where the product comes from. VIP’s toy wasn’t just poking fun; it also mimicked Jack Daniel’s trade dress, making it look like a Jack Daniel’s product.

Can Parody Be Considered Noncommercial Use?

• VIP also argued that the parody made their use “noncommercial,” exempting them from liability under the Lanham Act’s dilution clause.

What About Consumer Confusion?

• The critical question was whether consumers might mistakenly believe Jack Daniel’s had endorsed or created the Bad Spaniels toy. Jack Daniel’s presented survey evidence showing confusion among consumers.

Supreme Court’s Take: The Court emphasized that determining consumer confusion is central to trademark law. The First Amendment doesn’t override the Lanham Act’s purpose: protecting consumers from being misled and ensuring trademark owners’ rights

Lessons Learned

This case highlights some valuable lessons for businesses, trademark owners, and even parody creators:

• Parody Isn’t a Free Pass. Fair use does not shield a business from trademark liability when the parody is used to sell a product in a way that confuses consumers.
• Consumer Confusion Matters. If your product mimics another brand’s trademarks, you could face trouble if consumers might think it’s associated with or endorsed by the original brand.

Trademark Use vs. Expression. The Court made it clear when a trademark is used to identify the source of a product, it must comply with the Lanham Act. Claiming it’s “expressive” doesn’t let you off the hook.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.

This image was created with Leonardo.ai.