Remove 2023 Remove Artistic Work Remove Designs Remove Trademark Law
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

Intellectual Property Law Blog

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No. 1125(c)(3)(A).

Fair Use 130
article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.

Insiders

Sign Up for our Newsletter

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

article thumbnail

Supreme Court Rules “That Dog Don’t Hunt”: Bad Spaniels Toy’s Use of JACK DANIELS Marks is a Poor Parody and Dilution Act Applies

LexBlog IP

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court in a unanimous decision held that a trademark claim concerning “a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniels whiskey” which, as a play on words, turns the words “Jack Daniels” into “Bad Spaniels” and the descriptive phrase “Old No.

article thumbnail

Takeaways from the Hermès Litigation over MetaBirkins NFTs

LexBlog IP

In the lawsuit, Hermès alleged that defendant Mason Rothschild’s MetaBirkins NFTs infringed and diluted Hermès’ trademark rights in the Birkin word mark and design. Rothschild asserted that, due to the artistic nature of his NFTs, all of Hermès’ claims were barred by the First Amendment.

article thumbnail

Not Funny! Unanimous SCOTUS in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Holds That Parody Does Not Implicate First Amendment Concerns, But Only Implicates Likelihood of Confusion

LexBlog IP

On June 8, 2023, the Supreme Court unanimously decided the trademark parody case captioned Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. S. _ (2023) (hereinafter “Slip Op.”). The Court made plain that using a senior user’s trademark as a trademark in a parody does not implicate First Amendment concerns.

article thumbnail

Fashion Imitations and Legal Threads: Navigating Intellectual Property Rights in India

IIPRD

Abstract In the dynamic realm of the fashion industry, the saying ‘following in someone’s footsteps’ takes on a new dimension, where the replication of designs is not a mere stride but a strategic dance. Up-and-coming artists can exhibit their work to attract attention and serve as an inspiration to well-known brands.

article thumbnail

Resolving Conflicts Between Trademark and Free Speech Rights After Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (Guest Blog Post)

Technology & Marketing Law Blog

Ramsey is a Professor of Law at the University of San Diego School of Law. She writes and teaches in the trademark law area, and recently wrote a paper with Professor Christine Haight Farley that focuses on speech-protective doctrines in trademark infringement law.] By Guest Blogger Lisa P. Ramsey [Lisa P.

Trademark 101