The Supreme Court will look to dole out ruff justice this Wednesday when it hears a First Amendment case prompted by Jack Daniel’s gripes over a dog chew toy company’s parody products.
Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whiskey is urging the justices to toss out a lower court ruling that would allow the dog toy company, VIP Products, to continue manufacturing “Bad Spaniels” line of chew toys, a parody of the company’s famous whiskey bottle.
GOING TO THE DOGS: SUPREME COURT TAKES JACK DANIEL’S CASE AGAINST DOG TOY MAKER
The nine-member court prone to having brief asides and humorous exchanges could prompt some lighthearted jokes during arguments and discussions over Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products.
However, the stated issue surrounding the case is a far cry from the overarching implications of an eventual ruling that could extend to how brands control their depictions in books, media, and other formats where parodies exist. Thus, the dispute has prompted major interest from artists and major industry interest groups.
“This case is no laughing matter. While the case involves dog toys, even allegedly ‘humorous’ knock-offs can confuse consumers as to what messaging and products well-known alcohol beverage brands endorse,” Courtney Armour, Distilled Spirits Council’s chief legal officer, told the Washington Examiner in a statement ahead of the arguments.
Armour’s group is one of several organizations that filed briefs in favor of the whiskey giant’s position, arguing, “Companies must have control over their trademarks to ensure responsible advertising initiatives are effective and succeed.”
At the core of the Jack Daniel’s complaint is an effort to toss out a Supreme Court precedent known as the “Rogers test,” which stems from a 1989 case known as Rogers v. Grimaldi, in which the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 2nd Circuit created a higher standard for trademark infringement for expressive work.
Some examples of the toy company’s work include swapping the phrase “Old No. 7” with potty humor such as “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.”
VIP Products contends that the company it is parodying has no evidence that consumers were being misled about the parody products they are purchasing and that removing the decades-old legal test would threaten free speech.
Meanwhile, the Justice Department is expected to take a moderate approach on the issue and ask the justices to send the case to lower courts.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
The case before the justices Wednesday marks the second major intellectual property dispute this term. In October, justices debated fair use over an image of the late legendary musician Prince and a piece of art by Andy Warhol that used a copyrighted photo of the singer.
Decisions in both cases are expected by the end of June and could either expand or reduce the extent of fair use in creative and journalistic bodies of work.
