{"id":13980,"date":"2023-06-08T16:59:08","date_gmt":"2023-06-08T20:59:08","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.newsmediaalliance.org\/?p=13980"},"modified":"2025-02-06T13:30:33","modified_gmt":"2025-02-06T18:30:33","slug":"jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.newsmediaalliance.org\/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products\/","title":{"rendered":"Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC"},"content":{"rendered":"

Decided:<\/strong><\/span> June 8, 2023
\nCitation:<\/strong><\/span> Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ___ (2023)
\nAppeal from:<\/strong><\/span> Ninth Circuit
\nCase document:<\/strong><\/span> Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties v. VIP Products LLC<\/span><\/a><\/em><\/p>\n

Facts of the case<\/strong><\/span>
\nDog toy company VIP Products created a line of toys titled \u201cSilly Squeakers,\u201d resembling well-known alcoholic beverages. The stuffed toys visually replicate the drinks, except their names are spin-offs, such as \u201cBad Spaniels\u201d instead of Jack Daniels. Instead of the phrase \u201cOld No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey\u201d written on the bottle, the Jack Daniel\u2019s-themed toy read \u201cOld No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.\u201d After seeing the dog toy, Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties, Inc. filed a lawsuit against VIP Products, alleging the company engaged in trademark infringement and trademark dilution. After the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona ruled in favor of Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties, Inc., VIP Products appealed to the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the decision, leading Jack Daniels to petition to the Supreme Court.<\/p>\n

Question for the Court<\/strong><\/span>
\nThis case asked the Court to consider whether a parody of a product is exempt from fair-use limits and whether the product should receive heightened First Amendment protection as a form of expressive conduct.<\/p>\n

Decision<\/strong><\/span>
\nIn a unanimous decision<\/span><\/a>, the Court ruled that VIP Products violated trademark law with its parody toy of a Jack Daniel\u2019s Properties, Inc. product. Justice Kagan authored the opinion, writing, \u201cWe hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods\u2014in 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.\u201d Justice Sotomayor filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Alito joined. Justice Gorsuch also filed a concurring opinion in which Justice Barrett and Thomas joined.<\/p>\n

Free press implications<\/strong><\/span>
\nThe ruling emphasized that creative media does not receive preferential treatment when it comes to trademark use. This leaves open the potential for abuse of trademark rights to chill protected speech when a party disagrees with a message\u2019s viewpoint. In Justice Gorsuch\u2019s opinion, he raised questions on the Rogers v. Grimaldi<\/em> test, which is applied to protect free speech. The removal or further limiting of the test would drastically shift how the media messages brands.<\/p>\n

For further reading, please visit: <\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n