In a landmark ruling, the United States Supreme Court has decided that a dog chew toy resembling a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey does not receive First Amendment protection against a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement.
The case involved a dispute between the renowned distiller Jack Daniel’s and Bad Spaniels Silly Squeakers, the toy’s creator, which adds a touch of potty humor to the distiller’s iconic bottle design. The Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy resembles a Jack Daniel’s bottle, albeit with comical alterations related to dogs.
Instead of the label stating “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy reads “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Furthermore, while Jack Daniel’s proudly proclaims its whiskey to be 40 percent alcohol by volume, the canine counterpart claims to be “43 percent poo.” A disclaimer attached to the toy emphasizes that it has no affiliation with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.
Justice Elena Kagan expressed amusement at the unusual case, writing for a unanimous court, remarking, “This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence.” She acknowledged that the distinct characteristics of the Jack Daniel’s bottle were familiar to most people, given its iconic status. Justice Kagan went on to explain that the bottle, the “Jack Daniel’s” name, and the associated logo and label were all registered trademarks, making them central to the dispute.
Trademark cases typically revolve around whether the public may be misled about the source of a product. In this case, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit had previously ruled that when a challenged product expresses an idea or viewpoint, the First Amendment imposes a stricter test. However, Justice Kagan disagreed, stating that no such threshold filter was applicable in this instance. She emphasized that the likelihood of confusion was the crucial factor in determining trademark infringement.
Justice Kagan further noted that the mocking nature of the dog toy had to be considered in the analysis. It was not immediately obvious that consumers would believe Jack Daniel’s was responsible for a toy that parodied itself. The case has now been returned to lower courts for further examination.
During the oral arguments in March, Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. made a similar observation, suggesting that consumers would not attribute the dog toy’s production or endorsement to Jack Daniel’s. He humorously portrayed a hypothetical pitch meeting where a Jack Daniel’s executive was proposed the idea of a dog toy resembling their label, but containing dog urine.
Justice Kagan echoed this sentiment, stating that consumers are unlikely to perceive the maker of a mocked product as the one doing the mocking. She emphasized that self-mockery is far less common than self-deprecation.
The Supreme Court’s ruling in this case clarifies the standards for trademark infringement and reinforces the importance of considering likelihood of confusion when assessing potential trademark violations. The decision has far-reaching implications for trademark disputes involving parody and expressive works.