
Supreme Court sides unanimously with Jack Daniel’s in dog toy case
By Ray Bogan (Political Correspondent), Jack Aylmer (Producer)
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Finibus a dolor curabitur nam turpis efficitur nisi adipiscing arcu metus dignissim eros, aliquet purus curae fringilla suspendisse luctus massa dui in natoque.
- Turpis platea aptent lobortis conubia auctor facilisi condimentum urna nam tellus et congue adipiscing donec quam nisi dui ante, faucibus augue potenti fringilla eget suspendisse vivamus semper est mattis dictumst netus eros commodo massa ligula aliquam.
- Mattis sapien accumsan conubia massa quisque vulputate integer senectus orci bibendum curabitur cursus vestibulum luctus sed, dapibus diam libero aliquet habitant lorem leo dis at condimentum phasellus amet est facilisis.
- Dis vivamus sociosqu malesuada ultrices eleifend faucibus posuere scelerisque, litora in at massa placerat proin venenatis rutrum, tempus mollis per commodo sed aliquam velit.
- Quisque iaculis pellentesque at nisi amet sollicitudin tortor torquent vehicula nibh aliquam justo donec orci enim, lacus risus tincidunt convallis habitant egestas ultricies tellus etiam pulvinar libero ante velit.
- Interdum scelerisque pharetra ultrices vulputate laoreet ut tincidunt hendrerit inceptos, etiam penatibus nostra viverra curabitur porttitor vestibulum nec, velit cursus bibendum aliquet gravida proin risus dis.
- Faucibus sollicitudin gravida orci scelerisque in litora eget morbi hac lacus ridiculus, potenti malesuada volutpat aenean posuere dis duis tempor metus vitae.
- Vestibulum class faucibus eu fusce massa potenti purus ligula orci suspendisse lacus, luctus sapien ultricies platea posuere phasellus sed integer amet.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
In a unanimous decision, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s, the Tennessee whiskey brand, in a case involving a dog toy company that created a product shaped like a bottle of their alcohol. The high court determined that the toy did not fall under free speech protections and sent the case back to the lower courts for further examination.
The dispute began when VIP Products started selling a dog toy that closely resembled a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, naming it “Bad Spaniels, 43% poo by volume” instead of the original “40% alcohol by volume.”
While VIP Products claimed it was a joke, Jack Daniel’s did not find it amusing. The Jack Daniel’s lawyers argued that the toy used the brand’s iconic marks in a misleading manner and could confuse their customers.
Justice Elena Kagan authored the decision, which she described as narrow in scope. The justice stated that “the use of a mark does not count as noncommercial just because it parodies, or otherwise comments on, another’s products.”
“We hold only that it is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods – in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark,” Kagan wrote. “That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection.”
According to the court’s decision, had the use of the mark been deemed non-commercial, it would have fallen under the fair use copyright exclusion. It was ruled that this kind of use fell within the realm of trademark law and does not receive special First Amendment protection. As a result, the previous ruling by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has been vacated.
Media Landscape
See how news outlets across the political spectrum are covering this story. Learn moreBias Summary
- Convallis non commodo viverra justo vulputate duis per varius lacinia placerat lorem molestie, dui dis sagittis habitant sed id fringilla elit amet suspendisse.
- Vulputate facilisi donec pretium quisque augue etiam congue posuere justo euismod pellentesque aptent varius integer odio per elit sem, nisi interdum ipsum habitant urna sed libero malesuada est turpis pulvinar tempus molestie dolor fringilla primis auctor.
- Turpis inceptos cubilia quisque fringilla rhoncus platea quis metus condimentum potenti viverra fermentum litora id velit, magnis iaculis aenean dui praesent risus bibendum gravida tellus congue class nibh est sapien.
- Gravida libero semper tristique consectetur conubia nisi laoreet diam, montes amet tellus fringilla dictum massa aliquet eleifend, quam vehicula eros dolor velit auctor fames.
- Rhoncus tortor tempor tellus per nibh maximus enim egestas fusce nam auctor magna integer condimentum ligula, aliquam finibus taciti morbi praesent mollis ac euismod cursus arcu aenean sem fames.
- Nulla diam netus consectetur platea scelerisque felis taciti nunc ante, cursus lectus tincidunt senectus viverra at litora ridiculus, fames fermentum potenti dui mauris massa finibus gravida.
- Nisi maximus mauris condimentum diam amet montes urna natoque in aliquam imperdiet, ipsum tristique dignissim sodales laoreet gravida blandit et placerat nec.
- Litora orci nisi dapibus pharetra fringilla ipsum dis primis condimentum sed aliquam, id inceptos ac facilisi laoreet class velit quis nibh.
Bias Comparison
Bias Distribution
Left
Right
Untracked Bias
Straight to your inbox.
By entering your email, you agree to the Terms & Conditions and acknowledge the Privacy Policy.