Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
United States Supreme Court
143 S. Ct. 1578 (2023)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
Jack Daniel’s Properties (Jack Daniel’s) (defendant) owned several trademarks that identified it as the source of certain whiskey, including trademarks relating to the bottle’s shape and certain label graphics and phrases. VIP Products LLC (VIP) (plaintiff) made a dog toy with a highly similar shape and label, but instead of saying “Jack Daniel’s” and “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy’s label said “Bad Spaniels” and “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” The toy also changed alcohol volume to “poo” volume. VIP used these parody marks as its own trademarks to identify the toy’s source. Jack Daniel’s claimed that the toy (1) infringed on its trademarks and (2) tarnished and diluted its trademarks by associating them with excrement. VIP filed a declaratory-judgment action, arguing that it was allowed to parody the marks. The district court ruled for Jack Daniel’s on both claims, emphasizing that VIP was using the parodies as source-identifying trademarks for its own toy. The Ninth Circuit reversed, ruling that the Rogers test applied to the infringement claim because VIP was expressing a parody message, even if VIP was also using that parody message as its own trademark. The Ninth Circuit also ruled that VIP’s parody was a permitted, noncommercial use that was excluded from dilution liability. On remand, the district court applied these rulings to enter judgment for VIP. The Ninth Circuit affirmed. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Kagan, J.)
Concurrence (Gorsuch, J.)
Concurrence (Sotomayor, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 811,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
