WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court gave whiskey maker Jack Daniel’s one thing to cheer about, handing the corporate a brand new probability to win a trademark dispute with the makers of the Bad Spaniels canine toy.
In saying the choice for a unanimous court docket Thursday, Justice Elena Kagan was in an unusually playful temper. Observers who watched her learn a abstract of the opinion within the courtroom mentioned at one level she held up the toy, which squeaks and mimics the whiskey’s signature bottle.
Kagan mentioned a decrease court docket’s reasoning was flawed when it dominated for the makers of the rubber chew toy. The court docket didn’t determine whether or not the toy’s maker had violated trademark legislation however as an alternative despatched the case again for additional evaluation.
“This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence,” Kagan wrote in an opinion for the court docket. At one other level, Kagan requested readers to “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it’s probably there)” earlier than inserting a coloration image of it.
Arizona-based VIP Products has been promoting its Bad Spaniels toy since 2014. It’s a part of the corporate’s Silly Squeakers line of chew toys that mimic liquor, beer, wine and soda bottles. They embody Mountain Drool, which parodies Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff’n, which parodies Heineken beer.
While Jack Daniel’s bottles have the phrases “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” The authentic bottle notes it’s 40% alcohol by quantity. The parody contains a canine’s face and says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”
The packaging of the toy, which retails for round $20, notes in small font: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”
Jack Daniel’s, primarily based in Lynchburg, Tennessee, wasn’t amused. Its legal professionals argued that the toy misleads prospects, income “from Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill” and associates its “whiskey with excrement.”
At the middle of the case is the Lanham Act, the nation’s core federal trademark legislation. It prohibits utilizing a trademark in a approach “likely to cause confusion … as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of … goods.”
A decrease court docket by no means bought to the difficulty of shopper confusion, nonetheless, as a result of it mentioned the toy was an “expressive work” speaking a humorous message and due to this fact wanted to be evaluated beneath a unique check. Kagan mentioned that was a mistake and that “the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion.”
Kagan additionally mentioned a decrease court docket erred in its evaluation of Jack Daniel’s declare in opposition to the toy firm for linking “its whiskey to less savory substances.”
Source: www.bostonherald.com”