SCOTUS Sides With Jack Daniel's Over Dog Toy Copyright Dispute

Updated on June 8, 2023

• In a unanimous decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in favor of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey in its legal fight with VIP Products, a dog toy maker whose "Bad Spaniels" toy uses the whiskey company's famous logo.
• VIP Products argued that the whole thing was a parody and an example of freedom of speech. They cited the Rogers test, a trademark precedent that allows artists to use another's trademark as long as it has artistic value and does not mislead consumers.
• The court disagreed. Justice Elena Kagan said:

"The use of a mark does not count as noncommercial just because it parodies, or otherwise comments on, another's products."

• Kagan wrote on behalf of the court:

"We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods – in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark. That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection."

What's the story?

• The famous Tennessee whiskey company, Jack Daniel's, is trying to halt the production and marketing of a chewy dog toy called Bad Spaniels, which is decorated like one of its bottles.
• The bottle is part of a parodical line of dog toys called Silly Squeakers, manufactured by VIP products, the second-largest dog toy manufacturer in the U.S.
• The toy features a spaniel and a play on 40% alcohol by volume: "43% poo by volume, 100% smelly." VIP's owner, Stephen Sacra, said he was inspired by a Jack Daniel's sign he saw in a bar. This specific toy is one of their best-selling products.

The lawsuit

• The lawsuit from Jack Daniel's claims that Bad Spaniels infringes on its trademark, confuses consumers, and tarnishes its reputation. Their legal team said:

"Jack Daniel's loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel's likes its customers even more, and doesn't want them confused or associating its fine whiskey with dog poop."

• Former Solicitor General Gregory Garre said:

"[G]iving businesses a free pass to capitalize on hard-earned trademarks...would deeply destabilize an economic system that is rightly the envy of the world."

• In response, VIP's brief said:

"Freedom of speech begins with freedom to mock."

• VIP's lawyer Bennett Evan Cooper said Jack Daniel's missed the point:

"There is no bottle of dog food being sold. It's a pretend trademark on a pretend label for a pretend bottle full of pretend content. The entire thing is a parody."

Do you support Jack Daniel's lawsuit? Which side are you on?

—Emma Kansiz