On trademark infringement (under the federal Lanham Act), the court of appeals concluded that VIP’s communication of a humorous message called for heightened scrutiny to ensure that trademark protection for Jack Daniel’s did not intrude on First Amendment values.

Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit reversed on both counts. Finding a likelihood that consumers would confuse the “Bad Spaniels” toy with Jack Daniel’s, the trial court ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s and barred VIP from continuing to manufacture the Bad Spaniels toy. Predictably enough, Jack Daniel’s sued VIP for trademark infringement and dilution. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” manufactured by “Jack Daniel’s,” the toy refers to a “Bad Spaniel” that makes “Old No. The main difference is that instead of describing “Old No. The toy in question was modeled on and closely resembles the distinctive square bottle in which Jack Daniel’s has marketed its whiskey since the 19th century – with the same size and shape and a label with a similar shape and font. VIP has a line of spoof products that parody famous brands. The case involves a dispute between Jack Daniel’s (the largest American whiskey manufacturer) and VIP Products (the second-largest American dog toy manufacturer).

VIP Products to be heated, as the justices consider the possibility that protection for parodies requires an exception to traditional trademark protections. It is fair to expect Wednesday’s arguments in Jack Daniel’s Properties v.

Rules no purchase 2018 driniels jack