Skip to main content

Nixon Peabody LLP

  • People
  • Capabilities
  • Insights
  • About
Trending Topics
    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    Practices

    View All

    • Affordable Housing
    • Community Development Finance
    • Corporate & Finance
    • Cybersecurity & Privacy
    • Entertainment & Media
    • Environmental
    • Franchising & Distribution
    • Government Investigations & White Collar Defense
    • Healthcare
    • Intellectual Property
    • International Services
    • Labor, Employment, and Benefits
    • Litigation
    • Private Wealth & Advisory
    • Project Finance
    • Public Finance
    • Real Estate
    • Regulatory & Government Relations
    Industries

    View All

    • Aviation
    • Cannabis
    • Consumer
    • Energy
    • Financial Services
    • Healthcare
    • Higher Education
    • Infrastructure
    • Manufacturing
    • Nonprofit Organizations
    • Real Estate
    • Sports & Stadiums
    • Technology
    Value-Added Services

    View All

    • Alternative Fee Arrangements

      Developing innovative pricing structures and alternative fee agreement models that deliver additional value for our clients.

    • Continuing Education

      Advancing professional knowledge and offering credits for attorneys, staff and other professionals.

    • Crisis Advisory

      Helping clients respond correctly when a crisis occurs.

    • DEI Strategic Services

      Providing our clients with legal, strategic, and practical advice to make transformational changes in their organizations.

    • eDiscovery

      Leveraging law and technology to deliver sound solutions.

    • Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG)

      We help clients create positive return on investments in people, products, and the planet.

    • Global Services

      Delivering seamless service through partnerships across the globe.

    • Innovation

      Leveraging leading-edge technology to guide change and create seamless, collaborative experiences for clients and attorneys.

    • IPED

      Industry-leading conferences focused on affordable housing, tax credits, and more.

    • Legal Project Management

      Providing actionable information to support strategic decision-making.

    • Legally Green

      Teaming with clients to advance sustainable projects, mitigate the effects of climate change, and protect our planet.

    • Nixon Peabody Trust Company

      Offering a range of investment management and fiduciary services.

    • NP Capital Connector

      Bringing together companies and investors for tomorrow’s new deals.

    • NP Second Opinion

      Offering fresh insights on cases that are delayed, over budget, or off-target from the desired resolution.

    • NP Trial

      Courtroom-ready lawyers who can resolve disputes early on clients’ terms or prevail at trial before a judge or jury.

    • Social Impact

      Creating positive impact in our communities through increasing equity, access, and opportunity.

    • Women in Dealmaking

      We provide strategic counsel on complex corporate transactions and unite dynamic women in the dealmaking arena.

    1. Home
    2. Insights
    3. Alerts
    4. “Ruff” day at the Supreme Court balancing trademark rights and free speech

      Alerts

    Alert / Intellectual Property

    “Ruff” day at the Supreme Court balancing trademark rights and free speech

    March 27, 2023

    LinkedInX (Twitter)EmailCopy URL

    By Jennette Psihoules

    The decision regarding a dog toy could have significant implications for brand owners and parties interested in parodying another’s trademark.

    What’s the impact?

    • The court must weigh whether the Rogers test should apply to disputes involving trademark-protected commercial products.
    • The potential outcomes could have far-reaching consequences — removing First Amendment protections from trademark infringement analysis, or weakening trademark owners’ rights by allowing widespread unauthorized use of another’s trademark.

    DOWNLOAD

    Read about the recent Supreme Court decision

    On Wednesday, March 22, 2023, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC (Docket 22-148), a case involving Jack Daniel’s Tennessee whisky and a novelty dog chew toy. The Court was asked to evaluate the intersection between trademark law and free speech under the First Amendment. The arguments and the justices’ questions were filled with hypotheticals and subject matter references that triggered laughs throughout the courtroom. The Court appears split, but its decision could have significant implications for brand owners and parties interested in using another’s trademark for parody or other humorous uses.

    Old brands, new tricks

    Jack Daniel’s is a longstanding and well-known brand of Tennessee whiskey. VIP sells a dog chew toy that mimics Jack Daniel’s distinct square-bottled whiskey and incorporates a similar label to Jack Daniel’s in terms of shape, color, and font. Playing on the “Jack Daniel’s” name and “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” description, the dog toy features the name “Bad Spaniels” and description “The Old No. 2 on your Tennessee carpet.” The dog toy also includes the language “43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.”

    Image credit: Ronald Mann, Dog toy poking fun at Jack Daniel’s leads to dispute over parody exception to trademark protections, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 20, 2023, 10:57 AM)
    Image credit: Ronald Mann, Dog toy poking fun at Jack Daniel’s leads to dispute over parody exception to trademark protections, SCOTUSblog (Mar. 20, 2023, 10:57 AM).

    Jack Daniel’s sued VIP for trademark infringement and dilution. VIP argued that its use is protected free speech. The district court found in favor of Jack Daniel’s and held that VIP’s use infringed and tarnished the Jack Daniel’s brand. The Ninth Circuit reversed the lower court’s decision and determined that VIP’s use was protected by the First Amendment. The circuit court relied on the test established in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), which provides First Amendment protections to works that use third-party trademarks, so long as the work is considered “artistically expressive” and does not “explicitly mislead” consumers. Applying Rogers, the Ninth Circuit found VIP’s use of the Jack Daniel’s marks to be humorous and expressive and thus, protected free speech. Jack Daniel’s petitioned the Supreme Court to review the holding.

    The questions before SCOTUS

    The Supreme Court was presented with the following questions:

    • whether humorous use of another’s trademark as one’s own on a commercial product is subject to the Trademark Act’s traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis, or instead receives heightened First Amendment protection from trademark infringement claims; and
    • whether humorous use of another’s mark as one’s own on a commercial product is noncommercial and thus bars as a matter of law a claim of dilution by tarnishment.

    During oral arguments, Jack Daniel’s argued that the Trademark Act should control and that there is no exception for expressive works in the text of the Trademark Act. Jack Daniel’s further argued that Rogers does not apply, and that VIP’s dog toy is a commercial product that is likely to cause consumer confusion and dilute Jack Daniel’s brand and harm its reputation. VIP argued that its use is a parody and that a parody by nature is noncommercial and expressive. VIP also argued that the Rogers test should be upheld and act as an initial screen in cases like this to determine whether something is an artistic expression and therefore protected by the First Amendment before moving on to the question of whether there is a likelihood of confusion. The justices’ questions indicated hesitancy for a broad application of the Rogers test, but concern for doing away with Rogers altogether and the potential stifling of speech.

    What’s next?

    The Supreme Court anticipates a decision in June. In addition to answering the questions presented, the Court’s decision may have greater policy implications. A ruling in favor of Jack Daniel’s position could completely remove First Amendment protections from a trademark infringement analysis, whereas a ruling in favor of VIP could weaken trademark owners’ rights and allow for widespread unauthorized use of another’s trademark so long as it is humorous. The oral arguments suggest that the decision is likely to be narrow and more in the middle. Brand owners and users should stay (sit, roll, fetch) tuned.

    Practices

    Intellectual PropertyTrademark Portfolio Management

    Industries

    ConsumerFood, Beverage & Agribusiness

    Insights And Happenings

    • Alert

      SCOTUS clarifies use of the First Amendment defense in Jack Daniels Properties v. VIP Products LLC

      June 13, 2023
    • Alert

      Will the European Commission’s eco-marketing plan curb greenwashing?

      May 1, 2023
    • Article

      Macro trends in the consumer products M&A market

      April 26, 2023
    The foregoing has been prepared for the general information of clients and friends of the firm. It is not meant to provide legal advice with respect to any specific matter and should not be acted upon without professional counsel. If you have any questions or require any further information regarding these or other related matters, please contact your regular Nixon Peabody LLP representative. This material may be considered advertising under certain rules of professional conduct.

    Subscribe to stay informed of the latest legal news, alerts, and business trends.Subscribe

    • People
    • Capabilities
    • Insights
    • About
    • Locations
    • Events
    • Careers
    • Alumni
    • Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Accessibility Statement
    • Statement of Client Rights
    • Purchase Order Terms & Conditions
    • Nixon Peabody International LLC
    • PAL
    © 2025 Nixon Peabody. All rights reserved