image source, US Supreme Court
The US Supreme Court has sided with whiskey brand Jack Daniel’s in its lawsuit against a company that sells what looks like a poop-themed toy for dogs.
The toy dog says “Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet”, while the famous whiskey bottle says “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey”.
In a unanimous decision on Thursday, the top US court found that the toy was a trademark infringement.
The unusual case led to laughter in court, and some jokes in the opinion.
Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote the court’s opinion, said: “This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two things that rarely appear in the same sentence.”
At another point he asks the court observers to “remember what the bottle looks like (or better yet, get a bottle from where you keep the wine; it’s probably there)”.
The ruling prompted an appeal that found the toy was a “non-commercial” parody, subject to the First Amendment’s free speech protections, and sent the case back to the lower courts.
The whiskey makers’ lawsuit argued that Arizona-based VIP Products LLC was profiting “from the hard-earned goodwill of Jack Daniel’s” and confusing consumers, by getting them to “associate Jack Daniel’s whiskey with in the dirt”. The toy costs $20 (£16). ”
The wine bottle says “40% alcohol by volume”, while the “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” chew toy says “43% poo by volume” and “100% Smelly”. The packaging includes a label stating that it is not affiliated with Jack Daniel’s.
The company also makes other similar toys that resemble other well-known alcohol and soda brands.
Attorneys for the Tennessee whiskey company said they saw no humor in the pun.
“Jack Daniel’s loves dogs and appreciates a good joke as much as anyone. But Jack Daniel’s loves its customers more, and doesn’t want to confuse them or associate its delicious whiskey with dog poop,” Lisa wrote Blatt, attorney for Jack Daniel’s. in court papers.
The Biden administration and major brands — such as Nike, Campbell Soup Company, Patagonia and Levi Strauss — urged the justices to side with Jack Daniel’s.
In a statement after the decision, a spokesperson for Jack Daniels said the company was pleased with the outcome.
“Jack Daniel’s is a brand recognized for quality and craftsmanship, and when friends around the world see the label, they know it represents something they can count on,” said Svend Jansen.
“We will continue to support efforts to protect the goodwill and strength of this iconic trademark.”
The case is the second intellectual property law the court has ruled on in recent months.
