Jack Daniels vs Bad Spaniels Dog Toys

[koduck]

Here's an important Supreme Court case every fan of Wacky Packages and parody law should pay close attention to:

https://www.cnbc.com/2022/11/22/supreme-court-to-hear-jack-daniels-trademark-case-against-dog-toy-company.html?qsearchterm=jack%20daniels%20supreme

[quas]

Wow, are we back in 1967 again with Ratz and Cracked Animals?!

[koduck]

Kind of seems that way! What's really interesting is that "Bad Spaniels" even cites Wacky Packages as an example of current use of parody law.

[Joe G.]

Neil, I am surprised this is still an issue with so much precedent supporting the fair use of IP in parody situations.  We can all remember the huge controversy over ‘Superduper-Man’ that almost derailed the early Mad comics in the 1950s. This is all settled law now and I’m sure we parody artists have nothing to fear, except fear itself, naturally.

[koduck]

Yeah, hopefully reason prevails. But as in so many things, money seems to talk loudest, and these companies have a lot of it! Keep your fingers crossed!

[sco(o)t]

Neil, I am surprised this is still an issue with so much precedent supporting the fair use of IP in parody situations.  We can all remember the huge controversy over ‘Superduper-Man’ that almost derailed the early Mad comics in the 1950s. This is all settled law now and I’m sure we parody artists have nothing to fear, except fear itself, naturally.

Unfortunately, the current Supreme Court doesn’t seem that concerned with precedence and established law. I’m a little concerned.

[Joe G.]

Scot in looking over the details of the case I don’t think it’s questioning whether parody is permissible  I think it’s whether or not the dog toy is parody or is simply trying to profit off of someone’s else’s IP.  I don’t think Wackys or any other artistic expression will be affected in any way by the decision.  Also in the article it says “In 2008, VIP Products lost a similar case brought by Budweiser-maker Anheuser-Busch, who sued the company over a toy labeled “ButtWiper.” and that didn’t affect Wackys at all so I think all is good.

[bandaches]

Scot in looking over the details of the case I don’t think it’s questioning whether parody is permissible  I think it’s whether or not the dog toy is parody or is simply trying to profit off of someone’s else’s IP.  I don’t think Wackys or any other artistic expression will be affected in any way by the decision.  Also in the article it says “In 2008, VIP Products lost a similar case brought by Budweiser-maker Anheuser-Busch, who sued the company over a toy labeled “ButtWiper.” and that didn’t affect Wackys at all so I think all is good.

Agree, I think this is a non issue for wacky packages.

[sco(o)t]

Scot in looking over the details of the case I don’t think it’s questioning whether parody is permissible  I think it’s whether or not the dog toy is parody or is simply trying to profit off of someone’s else’s IP.  I don’t think Wackys or any other artistic expression will be affected in any way by the decision.  Also in the article it says “In 2008, VIP Products lost a similar case brought by Budweiser-maker Anheuser-Busch, who sued the company over a toy labeled “ButtWiper.” and that didn’t affect Wackys at all so I think all is good.

Joe, I would be interested in hearing more about your thoughts, or anyone's, on the distinction here.  Is it because the packaging for WPs didn't parrallel the shape, size, appearance of an actual product?  I can't see anyone going into a Pet Shop and confusing Bad Spaniels with Jack Daniels and purchasing by accident. Unless they already had way too much Jack Daniels. I guess I don't understand the legal nit that is being picked in this case. As for Budweiser, they should be sued by the canines of the world for having a product that tastes too much like dog p*ss.