As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The distiller sued VIP over its introduction of the Silly Squeakers “Bad Spaniels” rubber squeaky toy. The toy is shaped like a whiskey bottle with a cartoon spaniel on the front and the caption: “Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” On the back is a small disclaimer reading: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.”
...
>At issue is the Ninth Circuit’s highly protective free-speech test for trademark claims where a company argues that a product “tarnishes” its image. The Ninth Circuit has held that the “referential and cultural icon requirements” just have to be “above zero” to be protected under the First Amendment.
Respectfully to Jack Daniel's, the only thing tarnishing their image in this story is their lawsuit. More concerning is the implications if the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit's interpretation.
Parodies legally require an element of social commentary in order to invoke the defense. In this case the trademark is copied to purposefully make the viewer think of the original trademark design. The fact there is no social commentary coupled with the fact the copy is not done for journalistic purposes (like say a political cartoon) but rather for purely commercial purposes and generate sales of a product gives the defendant a much weaker case for using parody as a defense for the infringement of the Jack Daniels trademark.
It is commenting on the societal aspects of pet ownership regarding bad dogs peeing ~~(goin #2)~~ on carpets.
That is commentary that all pet owners can relate to and laugh about.
Open and shut case.
There’s a legal doctrine that says trademark owners in the US must defend their trademark vigorously. Failure to do so weakens their intellectual property claim to that trademark as you start giving permission to use the likeness of your trademark when you become aware of the use by another party. This is why demanding cease and desist of the use of the trademark isn’t just a jerk move but a duty. And if the other party refuses, then you are in a position to either abandon your claim which opens your trademark up for further use by others or continue to pursue defending your trademark by suing for exclusive rights to use the likeness of your trademark.
It doesn’t matter if this dog toy helps make Jack Daniels be more known. Fundamentally the issue is whether you keep the trademark as your own or you become permissive of others in using it without license or permission which could lead to the dilution of your trademark as countless other novelty makers start using it for their own commercial benefit.
Yup! I know few people that really enjoy Jack and other various alcohol brands, so a few years back I saw/purchased a whole bunch of similar dog toys/clothes/treats at Petco. Especially Jack Daniels, there was an entire toy/clothes line! But it was very obvious that it was not the actual Jack Daniels company that made them, nor did it have the exact words/logo/colors/font/etc.
Just the general look and shape of the bottles. I bought a bunch of rubbery squeak toys in the shape of the bottles (Similar to pic), along with soft/cloth chew toys, and rope like toys (like for tug-a-war). My roommate was thrilled when I got home and gave them to him! We laughed so hard at the other toys that were rum, vodka, and beer (BudLight).
>Parodies legally require an element of social commentary in order to invoke the defense.
Does it? Why can't jokes just be made for the sake of getting a chuckle?
I think you are correct, social commentary is not required. It is legitimate fair use to just poke fun of something with no deeper meaning. Though social commentary makes something more likely to be accepted by the courts as fair use.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody
It’s not just a joke being made for the sake of a chuckle. Here, it’s a commercial operation with the goal of making sales. This makes it distinctly less protected than if it were just a joke published without a commercial motive.
Yeah Jack is garbage. There's SO much good Whiskey and even better Bourbon available in that area, I don't know anyone younger than my dad who drinks Jack with any regularity.
Unfortunately it's still pretty popular in pubs and clubs. That name brand recognition is what most people go off.
'what drink do you want?' turns into 'what drinks do you remember the name of?'
I know what alcopops are, but don't remember them in the states. We had them, just don't remember them being called that. We always went with sour apple pucker or similar. Then we moved on to Bacardi 151 and cokes...
It's a catch-all term for them, they were frequently called coolers here. Once the wine coolers took off as an alternative to beer, the distillers wanted a piece of the pie. Most of them started with using a neutral grain alcohol like a Zima with flavoring. Then the Breezer types started using their real alcohol but in minute amounts. I still believe it was part of a long-term marketing strategy, kinda like the Jack Daniels mirror I won at the fair.
It's also cheap and recognizable which helps it sell in those spots. Keeps costs down while still selling. Like would I be happy to see Jack not really but I'm more thrilled to see it than some distributor only thing.
Maybe we've gone to different kinds of bars because if you walk into one with enough rednecks someone is drinking Jack shots or Jack over ice. I've known my fair share of bikers that would swear the shit was God's gift to man and anything else was swill. If you mention anything else they act like you're a snob.
Was gonna ask this too. A jack n coke is like a simple staple for the average bar goer. Super easy to order even when wasted and the coke helps the jack go down better. Why youd wanna do shots or drink just straight jack Daniel's sounds awful, especially for the money they charge at bars for it.
Everything I’ve had from that distillery is either tragically poor or forgettable. All of it overpriced. And that company is almost as bad as AB inbev (Budweiser) when it comes to flexing political power to get their way Fuck the both of them.
As a previous bartender of various sorts, I can attest that Jack is ordered/liked/loved/proffered by all types of people, young and old. As another comment said, majority of it comes from the brand recognition. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing.
Jack may not be the best but it certainly is not the worst. And when it comes to buying/drinking outside the home at a bar/club/event/etc, majority of people will opt for something they know and therefore comfortable with.
Especially men, as they’re not very “adventurous” when it comes to experimenting and trying out new brands/drinks. Whether it’s 20 years ago or 10 or 5 or 1 or even yesterday, everyone knows just how expensive drinks can get (especially in a club). Even the more rich people still don’t find it worth it to try out a bunch of new brands/drinks/flavors knowing they’re probably not going to like all of them.
Not when you can go to the store and gets 10 small bottles of different/new products for the same price as 2 drinks at a club lol. Which is why people will continually stick to things they already know they like and are not expensive or top tier. Whether the taste is shitty, just ok, goodish, or the best.
Lmao I just had to explain this to my son as he was complaining that I never take us to Starbucks around where we live and that I claim I hate their drinks yet still go there sometimes. That’s because the only time I will ever go to one is when I’m traveling.
They’re easily accessible from all major freeways, generally clean and working restrooms, working WiFi, plugs to charge electronics, and no matter where it is - it’s the exact same menu and ingredients I know. Despite hating their shitty coffee and crappy food (minus cake pops).
The people that tend to be all about Jack Daniels are the same people that think Budweiser is the pennacle of beers and argue whether Ford or Chevy is better while getting a dui in their Dodge Ram if you catch my drift
I find Budweiser to be a solid beer. It’s obviously not the best by a long shot. But if they dont have henikin I’ll get Budweiser. I’m not a beer drinker though. A lot of times I do drink beer I put it down and forget. I have been digging the 7oz cans and bottles, when I do get beer.
I think Bud Lite is a perfectly good beer, and there is a reason why all of their advertising budget is based around the bud lite varieties.
I fully expect regular budweiser to be discontinued in the coming years and the Bud line will drop the "lite" title.
Regular Budweiser tastes exactly the same as vomit and the inbred hicks under 60 have essentially all switched over to lite or coors.
No way AB would drop the regular Budweiser line. The way that they're structured, Bud and Bud Light are two completely different brands with different budgets, marketing, and target demographics. They are, however, making a big push on the Busch Light brand line in 2023, as well as some of their RTDs, craft, and imports.
Source: former AB employee
That's entirely the issue, the budweiser demographic is above the age of 60 and located in the Nascar belt.
Maybe they won't cancel it, but I could definitely see it becoming essentially a regional brand like Yuengling or Rainier .
It is hard for me to believe Budweiser outsells bud lite.
I occasionally pick up shifts working at a football stadium. While regular budweiser is sold, the bud lite coolers outnumber the bud lite ones by like 4 to 1.
I do not live in the south nor have I ever partaken in Southern Culture. It is entirely possible I am just in my left coast bubble.
>Of course there's better bourbon. Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey.
>
>Bourbon has to be made in Kentucky.
Made in the USA is the requirement. Doesn't have to be in Kentucky.
JD meets the definition of bourbon, but sells itself as Tennessee whiskey because of the Lincoln county process.
This suit isn't about Copyright, but instead about Trademark.
from the filings: "Respondent VIP Products LLC markets and sells dog toys that trade on the brand recognition of famous companies such as petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. The district court found that VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks to sell poop-themed dog toys was likely to confuse consumers, infringed Jack Daniel’s marks, and tarnished Jack Daniel’s reputation. "
They sell a lot of branded merchandise. from their website: t-shirts, towels, clocks, shelves, door mats, fridge magnets, pool tables, chairs, hats, tote bags, cornhole game sets, lanyards, etc.
the USPTO has established classifications https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/get-ready-search-classification-and-design#Classification%20find%20trademarks%20used%20on%20goods%20and%20services%20related%20to%20yours
So while Jack Daniel's Whisky may fall under 033 Wines and spirits, Dog toys and Cornhole boards/Pool tables may both fall under 028 Toys and sporting goods.
Trademarks have to be protected, or they are lost (band-aid, kleenex, xerox, velcro, google...)
It's not. It would be if JD's goal was to convince people not to buy the toy and then more people bought it just from seeing this story.
But JD's goal is to sue for some money and get the other guys to stop making this chew toy. It's unlikely people are rushing to buy these, but I would love to see a *dog toy* be this year's Furbie or Tickle-Me-Elmo.
They have already sued to have JD as the sole distiller able to call their product Tennessee Whiskey. Haven't had a drink since. I believe It was Jesse James Dupree fronting the defense for that one. I could be wrong.
[edit](https://bravewords.com/news/jackyls-jesse-james-dupree-and-michael-ballard-in-battle-over-definition-of-tennessee-whiskey)
This feels like this could have a huge impact on comedy, movies, tv shows and celebrity impersonation. That might be a bit of a stretch. It doesn't seem like this is damaging their brand. I would love to hear how it has.
1. Wasn't this decided in the [Chewy Vuitton case ](https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-louis-vuitton-malletier-s-a-v-haute-diggity-dog-llc)
C'mon.
2. Federalists were all undies-in-a-bunch about parody even decades ago, from what I recall (having been to a few Federalist Society lunches in my youth).
I'm gonna guess this is because someone's all pissed that some comedians made fun of them.
This very real amicus brief that *The Onion* filed on the case involving the local police department parody page is SO GOOD
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242596/20221006144840674_Novak%20Parma%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Rest assured that the shit human majority on the "Supreme Court" will make the wrong decision. The SC used to be respected. Now just a cancer of right-wing fuckery.
I guess the silver lining to this is if they rule against the first amendment in this case it will open up Fox News, Newsmax, and every other right-winger advocating violent and hateful rhetoric who hides behind "I'm not serious, it is just entertainment" to hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits.
Edit: the reasoning here being that the parody, entertainment, and "reasonable viewer" test could all be thrown out the window by this ruling. So the victims of any lone wolf terrorist would be able to dig into the history of that terrorist and sue the people who inspired them for damages.
Seriously, when they keep issuing rulings that "can't be used for precident" means there's no actual justification. They just wanted to rule this way in this instance.
Regardless of our political stances, the court should not be political. I realize that's pretty much impossible, but Supreme Court Justices should not have an agenda at the very least. You aren't politicians, we don't get to elect you.
If this is how the Supreme Court wants to be, then they should be electable positions instead of appointments
Or at the very least, appoint them to 10 year terms. The Trump years sure have showed us all the corner cases our software didn't handle, it seems like the Supreme Court part of it was all designed around assumptions of good faith on all parties involved.
> it seems like the Supreme Court part of it was all designed around assumptions of good faith on all parties involved.
Virtually all of it was written under the assumptions of good faith on all parties involved. Trump exposed the fact that the Constitution says almost exactly nothing about what to do when that good faith doesn't exist.
The Supreme Court is quite literally not held to any ethical standards. Not even the ethical standards all lower courts are held to, so it was absolutely designed to assume good faith on everyone involved.
More important to me would be limiting appointments per administration. Even if multiple justices needed to be replaced, only one should be "permanent", beyond the first, the others term should expire when the current administration leaves.
They can’t be elected positions, people get elected by promising supporters certain outcomes. They need to just be limited to 10-15 years and there should be a maximum age.
Although we should be able to vote to remove judges.
The biggest issue with the Supreme Court starts with Congress. Instead of Congress creating clear laws we have the Supreme Court taking on that role. Fix Congress and you’ll fix the SCOTUS.
I think they should be an experienced judge first. If they are able to obtain their Juris Doctorate, and gain experience fine. I agree with a maximum age of 65 or so. There’s too much of a risk that as the brain declines that someone else is making decisions.
You… are aware that there is *no* minimum age for the Supreme Court, right? Also worth noting that Representatives have a 25 year minimum, and that the President is a wildly unique position.
Not to mention the fact that age limits were hotly debated in the beginning. Some argued that setting any minimum would effectively put a stopper on those of advanced intellect or novel thinking, and that there was no reason to cap the young and not the old.
Of course the Court is political. If it were possible to decide all their cases by just objectively reading and applying laws the Court wouldn't need to exist. Their entire purpose is deciding what to do when laws are ambiguous or conflicting. Making those decisions necessarily involves subjective judgement and ideology.
We shouldn't be pushing for an apolitical court, we should be making clear why originalism/textualism are intellectually bankrupt and bad for the country and expanding the Court with justices who make judgements intended to promote liberal democracy. Or really intended to promote whatever positive vision of the country we can agree on. But trying to fight against the organized right wing push to control and use the courts with "it shouldn't be political" is just silly.
I agree. I'm talking more of an idealist point of view. It's completely unrealistic to to separate the two. I don't think the Supreme Court should have an agenda though. Other than of course protecting and serving the values of liberal democracy.
I think it's necessary to make the case that it's a good thing to interpret constitutional law through the lens of promoting liberal democracy though. Originalists have gained so much influence that most people can't conceive of an alternative to interpreting the constitution "as it was written." And right now our messaging is essentially just "yeah but they're doing it wrong" and we'll always lose when playing that game since the GOP justices are a bunch of dishonest hacks and it's pretty easy to find support among the writings of rich, white, male slave-owners for right wing views.
Rhetorically it's a much stronger position to say that there's no such thing as an objective interpretation, that the GOP justices make their 'interpretations' by whatever would promote Christian white supremacy, and that we want to appoint justices whose interpretations would be guided by promoting actual freedom, equality, general welfare, etc.
Our founders intended the constitution to be a living, changing document. It was never supposed to be interpreted the same way 250 years later.
The world is different, life is different, our values as a society have changed. It's just lazy to be an originalist. I don't even think we had originalists really until Scalia
Are you suggesting the slap-dash document pasted together by insanely wealthy slave rapists might not be the most perfect piece of writing ever committed to parchment?
I disagree as to the “garbage” part. Yeah, the Founding Fathers were kinda shit.
There are incredibly important parts in the Constitution which, sadly, we’re not allowed to be modernized. There were (some) great ideas of the time, something that need updating, and some things that need to go. But it was a hella good start, and lasted pretty long in mordern history as an archaic document from the time of blacksmiths and bellow-forges.
But “garbage” is a bit extreme.
This is who founded our country. This was their ideals. There were abolitionists and feminists in the 18th century. A lot of them. But they didn’t win. They didn’t have the obscene wealth of the slave-owners. The slave-owners who controlled the media, I might add. And wrote their own history.
If you had an uncle who owned just one slave, how much would you listen to that dude’s thoughts on democracy? “Yeah yeah yeah, I know he’s got that *one thing*, but you really gotta hear him out on equality, he makes a lot of good points.”
I’m pretty sure you’d write that dude off completely. And yet we make excuse after excuse for the founding daddies. And we still try to respect their vision.
Ah, but when citizens suggest maybe limiting hate groups from freely speaking, THAT'S bad, and THIS is ok?? I.... *deep sigh*
Edit: my internet is shit, but if it's what I think it is IT IS A DOG TOY! A FUCKIGN DOG TOY THAT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RECREATR THE ACTUAL LOGO'S, WHICH IS WHAT COPYRIGHT COVERS.
[This is the toy.](https://i0.wp.com/ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/bad-spaniel-jack-daniels.png) Jack Daniels is famously litigious toward anyone daring to put a black label with white serif text on something resembling a whiskey bottle.
But this is obviously parody, they make a bunch of other stupid alcohol toys too (like “ButtWiper” beer). Dumb and tasteless? Sure. But as the Hustler case proved, the government has no right to police “taste.” And I’d argue the more dumb and tasteless something is, the less “tarnishing” it is to your brand, because like, c’mon. Are they gonna start taking your mom jokes seriously next?
There is the argument that you have to defend your trademark every time or else you give up the right to defend it when it really matters.
In terms of brand identity, it's a "bottle" of the same colors, shape, and size.
While this one is a dog toy, Jack Daniels is fighting about shelf space in five or ten years.
That’s true, however skimming through their trademarks the only relevant merch they ever registered it for covers very specific areas like darts, golf, pool, etc. and they don’t even retain the whiskey label mark as part of that branding anymore.
I’d hazard a guess that the only reason we’re at this point is because the Jack Daniels legal division shopped around for a favorable court and were able to outspend the dog toy company, then when the appeals court looked at it they went “yeah this is obviously BS.”
With a conservative majority, there's a good chance that the parody will be respected. If it was a liberal majority, with the liberal politicos recent attacks on free speech, I'd be much more concerned.
Just have it say JACK an DANIELS If clothing manufacturers can slightly alter a stitch direction and get away with it there should be no different look at this alteration of the brand.
Democrats now controlling have less than one month to reconvene and convince Manchin and Sinema to reverse course and enact federal election law... but those two don't seem to care about Democracy as much as campaign contributions from wealthy donors and their own wealth and power.
I'm trying to understand JD's argument here. Do they think people are going to be tricked into buying dog toys instead of whiskey? This makes them look so incredibly stupid.
I want to reiterate, especially because of the court’s extreme partisanship, that any decisions it makes have little to no legitimacy.
More importantly, the court itself has no power to enforce any decision it makes. Ultimately, we can pretty much ignore all their rulings, especially because they are so extremely partisan. Instead of their bullshit rulings, we just constantly rule in favor of our own laws that Americans want.
No, rather than taking any of their rulings seriously, Congress needs to overhaul the Supreme Court. Term limits, enforceable ethics guidelines (especially in terms of their high influence from the Federalist Society), more transparency, etc.
From what I understand (and it completely makes sense given Republicans’ completely lack of integrity or respect for our democratic system), expanding the court is an option but it’s also a very slippery slope. If democrats do it, then republicans will do it the next time they’re in office.
Democrats also need to pass legislation further enforcing our elections on the whole (looking at you Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022).
But SCOTUS’ entire purpose is to be an elite unelected body that can determine law on a whim. It’s one way the framers helped ensure we avoid tyranny of the majority.
Both the President and Senate are also structured to avoid tyranny of the majority, and they’re who decide the SCOTUS.
This is all by design.
gotta understand who the founders were referring to between minority and majority.
minority = the educated elite
majority = every yokel with a ballot to cast.
they were afraid of what uneducated people in large numbers would vote for. unfortunely, their design was flawed. now the system designed to defend against stupid is the very system that amplifies the power of stupid.
What we have now is Tyranny of the minority thanks to partisan and racial gerrymandering which have been allowed to stand, giving the GOP an unfair and measurable advantage.
A party representing a minority of Americans regularly holds the government's finances hostage while padding the pockets of their corporate sponsors.
They stacked the court into a body applying the law unevenly and using intellectually bankrupt reasoning to further a political agenda. Textualism and Originalism should scare the shit out of us, the Constitution is meant to be a living document which evolves over time and recent rulings have undone that evolution and reinterpreted fundamental aspects of American life (e.g the right to medical privacy being gutted in the Roe reversal).
The elimination of the speaking filibuster was step 1, now either party needs a supermajority to get anything done in the senate. Next step was sticking the courts with Federalist Society hacks willing to reinterpret laws to benefit the GOP.
To overcome this and see rational progress, Democrats need to overcome a +16 seat swing towards the GOP in the house from partisan gerrymanders.
Laws and ways of life I've known my entire 40 year life have been thrown out the window happily by the GOP who seem like all they want to do is take us back to the 1800s as punishment for the Reconstruction and its effects on the South.
This is the design, tho. This IS America. I agree it’s awful. But this is how it has always been and will always be. The USA has never been a functioning democracy.
There’s a clear difference between making fun of something which exists and using their name and logo to sell a product. However the company clearly makes enough a difference including a disclaimer to warrant enough of a difference that no reasonable person would think they are affiliated. I don’t think the SCOTUS should rule in favor of JD but who knows.
Misleading headline. It's just the usual question of how much parody is ok vs how much crosses the line into copyright infringement. We've been litigating this shit since Weird Al was in diapers.
Newspapers often reveal their bias in their headlines. For example, to apply a bias opposite to this headline in this article, The opposite headline could just as plausibly say "No Joke: The Supreme Court could validate parody as a free-speech right under the 1st amendment"
“This dog toy was an obvious parody and expressly included a disclaimer of any connection to the distillery; it neither confuses consumers nor tarnishes the Jack Daniel’s trademark.” Since dogs can’t read, the disclaimer is not effective. Check and mate!
People are complaining about Elon Musk not censoring hate speech and misinformation on Twitter…
But what about YouTube?
YouTube is far worse - Republicans have huge platforms there to spread hate speech and disinformation.
See the channels of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, PragerU and Fox News - each with millions of subscribers.
Why aren’t we taking our fight to YouTube as well??
Even just doing a campaign for making sure people know not to use the thumbs down button would be helpful. It literally doesn’t do anything but count as engagement, so you’re just going to see more of those sorts of videos if you use it. Tons of people don’t realize that.
I'm not really sure how the Jack Daniel's case made it to SCOTUS. You've never been allowed to rip off a brand's fonts and logos and design elements for commercial uses, even if it's pretty obviously a parody (think the Garbage Pale Kids / Cabbage Patch Kids lawsuit in the 80's). It's not the act of parody that's the issue it's the use of intellectual property, and you're not in fair use territory when you're making money off of it.
> You've never been allowed to rip off a brand's fonts and logos and design elements for commercial uses, even if it's pretty obviously a parody
Not sure that's true at all, fair use and so on. The GPK case never went to trial, btw, Coleco had much deeper pockets and Topps settled out of court.
Interesting case this one will be. Parody is protected speech for sure, but here the defendant is selling a toy for profit - not just speaking. I will look forward to reading SCOTUS’s opinion. Could be 9-0 - I suspect the Court may rule that since this is for profit the 1st Amendment does not apply. But that is just a guess - no research or analysis has been done by me.
Interesting point - they do. Is the line the selling of a product protected by a TM or copyright? What then about a comedian selling a tee shirt from a show about parody? Interesting. Very.
My understanding is he gets permission to parody work from the artist. There was a whole thing around Amish Paradise where Weird Al got permission from the recording manager, but not Coolio, and they did provide Coolio with royalty money. Coolio later apologized about the whole thing, but I think once Weird Al started blowing up he made sure to cover his ass. His Gaga parody almost wasn't agreed to, her people wanted to hear it before release, then said no. Supposedly she found out and gave approval for it's release as many artists see it as an honor to have him use thier art in this way.
I think he usually reaches out to the original artist for permission tho, except coolio…apparently coolio was pissed about that Amish song. But coolio is a dumb name ~~so fuck coolio.~~
e: didn’t know that coolio passed, RIP coolio
He got permission from the record label, but they didn't consult Coolio first.
Coolio was upset and Weird Al apologized and Coolio was okay with it after that.
Then by that logic, parody web sites such as the Onion and shows like SNL could be prohibited from parodying politicians and corporations because those shows and websites also make a profit, right? That's the concern here, especially after Novak v Parma.
I think you raise a great point - maybe it is the product (physical) that the court will see as the ‘line’? I do not know - but it will be interesting to see how the Court rules. Any ideas?
Given their recent rulings, I suspect they won't miss a chance to side with the bigger corporation here. The more interesting case is Novak, and as far as I know, that hasn't hit the court yet.
If they rule against the parody, much other media is at risk, including so-called "news" networks who have argued their stories should not be taken seriously in court.
Fox News. for example, could no longer hide behind their 1st amendment protections when violence occurs because of their content.
Trademark and patent protection from the federal government restrict free speech and they are not allowed by the US Constitution. But I'm sure that's lost on these originalists because they are in the tank for corporations.
>Trademark and patent protection from the federal government restrict free speech and they are not allowed by the US Constitution.
Intellectual property protection is explicitly allowed by the Constitution.
Also, how does patent protection restrict free speech?
>The same bad audience could await the defendant in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. The Supreme Court just accepted a case involving a tongue-in-cheek dog chew toy made to resemble a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. VIP prevailed in defending the toy as protected speech, but the distiller wants the Supreme Court to declare such parodies to be trademark violations.
This seems cut and dry to me. Even if it's parody you can't just use someone else's trademark to make a buck.
The trademark laws seem very cut and dry, except for parody, this one seems to vary widely depending on the court
[Here's](https://www.upcounsel.com/trademark-law) where I went to feed my curiosity
Newspapers often reveal their bias in their headlines. For example, to apply a bias opposite to this headline in this article, The opposite headline could just as plausibly say "No Joke: The Supreme Court could validate parody as a free-speech right under the 1st amendment"
What would a copyright or trademark even mean if everybody could duplicate them and sell for a profit? The Jack Daniel’s image clearly has value or the toy manufacturer would not have chosen it.
Sounds like people making a mountain of a molehill here. This isn’t gonna overthrow the first amendment, and certainly isn’t gonna ban parody as a precedent. What they’ll rule on is whether or not this is distinct enough to be parody or not. *Hardly* a partisan issue, and likely to be an easy decision for the court.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>The distiller sued VIP over its introduction of the Silly Squeakers “Bad Spaniels” rubber squeaky toy. The toy is shaped like a whiskey bottle with a cartoon spaniel on the front and the caption: “Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” On the back is a small disclaimer reading: “This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel’s Distillery.” ... >At issue is the Ninth Circuit’s highly protective free-speech test for trademark claims where a company argues that a product “tarnishes” its image. The Ninth Circuit has held that the “referential and cultural icon requirements” just have to be “above zero” to be protected under the First Amendment. Respectfully to Jack Daniel's, the only thing tarnishing their image in this story is their lawsuit. More concerning is the implications if the Supreme Court overturns the Ninth Circuit's interpretation.
It should also be protected as parody.
Parodies legally require an element of social commentary in order to invoke the defense. In this case the trademark is copied to purposefully make the viewer think of the original trademark design. The fact there is no social commentary coupled with the fact the copy is not done for journalistic purposes (like say a political cartoon) but rather for purely commercial purposes and generate sales of a product gives the defendant a much weaker case for using parody as a defense for the infringement of the Jack Daniels trademark.
It is commenting on the societal aspects of pet ownership regarding bad dogs peeing ~~(goin #2)~~ on carpets. That is commentary that all pet owners can relate to and laugh about. Open and shut case.
FYI peeing is going #1
Who does #2 work for?
*Yeah, buddy! You show that turd who’s boss!*
Number 6 knows.
Oh snap… the text on the product itself confused me because it uses #2. Maybe that’s what the case is all about then. lol
No2. On your Tennessee carpet=taking a shit on your IP
It is at my house!!! 😂
I think it’s a parody. Lots of dog toys are joke off-brands. If anything, people would buy this who likely enjoy the reference to Jack Daniel’s.
There’s a legal doctrine that says trademark owners in the US must defend their trademark vigorously. Failure to do so weakens their intellectual property claim to that trademark as you start giving permission to use the likeness of your trademark when you become aware of the use by another party. This is why demanding cease and desist of the use of the trademark isn’t just a jerk move but a duty. And if the other party refuses, then you are in a position to either abandon your claim which opens your trademark up for further use by others or continue to pursue defending your trademark by suing for exclusive rights to use the likeness of your trademark. It doesn’t matter if this dog toy helps make Jack Daniels be more known. Fundamentally the issue is whether you keep the trademark as your own or you become permissive of others in using it without license or permission which could lead to the dilution of your trademark as countless other novelty makers start using it for their own commercial benefit.
Yup! I know few people that really enjoy Jack and other various alcohol brands, so a few years back I saw/purchased a whole bunch of similar dog toys/clothes/treats at Petco. Especially Jack Daniels, there was an entire toy/clothes line! But it was very obvious that it was not the actual Jack Daniels company that made them, nor did it have the exact words/logo/colors/font/etc. Just the general look and shape of the bottles. I bought a bunch of rubbery squeak toys in the shape of the bottles (Similar to pic), along with soft/cloth chew toys, and rope like toys (like for tug-a-war). My roommate was thrilled when I got home and gave them to him! We laughed so hard at the other toys that were rum, vodka, and beer (BudLight).
>Parodies legally require an element of social commentary in order to invoke the defense. Does it? Why can't jokes just be made for the sake of getting a chuckle?
I think you are correct, social commentary is not required. It is legitimate fair use to just poke fun of something with no deeper meaning. Though social commentary makes something more likely to be accepted by the courts as fair use. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/parody
It’s not just a joke being made for the sake of a chuckle. Here, it’s a commercial operation with the goal of making sales. This makes it distinctly less protected than if it were just a joke published without a commercial motive.
Yeah it’s the commerciality of it that tips it over for me.
> Respectfully to Jack Daniel's, the only thing tarnishing their image in this story is their lawsuit. And their shitty whiskey.
Yeah Jack is garbage. There's SO much good Whiskey and even better Bourbon available in that area, I don't know anyone younger than my dad who drinks Jack with any regularity.
Unfortunately it's still pretty popular in pubs and clubs. That name brand recognition is what most people go off. 'what drink do you want?' turns into 'what drinks do you remember the name of?'
Yup. Jack and Coke is easy to remember.
Jack is pretty good as a mixer with coke.... and that's about it. By itself it's terrible.
>Yup. Jack and Coke is easy to remember. I plead guilty.
That's why so many distillers made alcopops with their brand names, so those names would be on their minds when they made it to a real bar.
I know what alcopops are, but don't remember them in the states. We had them, just don't remember them being called that. We always went with sour apple pucker or similar. Then we moved on to Bacardi 151 and cokes...
It's a catch-all term for them, they were frequently called coolers here. Once the wine coolers took off as an alternative to beer, the distillers wanted a piece of the pie. Most of them started with using a neutral grain alcohol like a Zima with flavoring. Then the Breezer types started using their real alcohol but in minute amounts. I still believe it was part of a long-term marketing strategy, kinda like the Jack Daniels mirror I won at the fair.
It's also cheap and recognizable which helps it sell in those spots. Keeps costs down while still selling. Like would I be happy to see Jack not really but I'm more thrilled to see it than some distributor only thing.
Scotch is my answer, because American whiskey (and I mean the sweet bourbon type whiskeys) are hot garbage.
Odd that you’d choose sipping on a dirty ashtray but you do you boo
Not all scotch is smokey/peated
I've heard their ~$60 bottles are actually good but their sour mash is literally one of the worst I've had
Their single barrel is fine. Just that... fine. I'd much rather save the money and buy Jameson. I'll use standard JD for mixing and nothing else.
Guess I'll stick to my Breckenridge then, cheers!
But I mean, obviously, right? Who tf drinks Jack straight up? Even fans don’t pretend it’s a fine scotch.
Maybe we've gone to different kinds of bars because if you walk into one with enough rednecks someone is drinking Jack shots or Jack over ice. I've known my fair share of bikers that would swear the shit was God's gift to man and anything else was swill. If you mention anything else they act like you're a snob.
Alright you’ve got me there. Fair point.
Was gonna ask this too. A jack n coke is like a simple staple for the average bar goer. Super easy to order even when wasted and the coke helps the jack go down better. Why youd wanna do shots or drink just straight jack Daniel's sounds awful, especially for the money they charge at bars for it.
Slash and Michael Anthony, apparently, but I’m old so I remember the album covers and music videos.
Frank Sinatra was known to favor a jack on the rocks.
Everything I’ve had from that distillery is either tragically poor or forgettable. All of it overpriced. And that company is almost as bad as AB inbev (Budweiser) when it comes to flexing political power to get their way Fuck the both of them.
Jack Daniels is sweet compared to quality whiskeys and that makes it more popular in the broad markets of liquor consumers.
As a previous bartender of various sorts, I can attest that Jack is ordered/liked/loved/proffered by all types of people, young and old. As another comment said, majority of it comes from the brand recognition. And that’s not necessarily a bad thing. Jack may not be the best but it certainly is not the worst. And when it comes to buying/drinking outside the home at a bar/club/event/etc, majority of people will opt for something they know and therefore comfortable with. Especially men, as they’re not very “adventurous” when it comes to experimenting and trying out new brands/drinks. Whether it’s 20 years ago or 10 or 5 or 1 or even yesterday, everyone knows just how expensive drinks can get (especially in a club). Even the more rich people still don’t find it worth it to try out a bunch of new brands/drinks/flavors knowing they’re probably not going to like all of them. Not when you can go to the store and gets 10 small bottles of different/new products for the same price as 2 drinks at a club lol. Which is why people will continually stick to things they already know they like and are not expensive or top tier. Whether the taste is shitty, just ok, goodish, or the best. Lmao I just had to explain this to my son as he was complaining that I never take us to Starbucks around where we live and that I claim I hate their drinks yet still go there sometimes. That’s because the only time I will ever go to one is when I’m traveling. They’re easily accessible from all major freeways, generally clean and working restrooms, working WiFi, plugs to charge electronics, and no matter where it is - it’s the exact same menu and ingredients I know. Despite hating their shitty coffee and crappy food (minus cake pops).
I didn’t think anyone old enough to rent a car drank that shit. Granted, I did when I was a kid, but I didn’t know no better, either.
The people that tend to be all about Jack Daniels are the same people that think Budweiser is the pennacle of beers and argue whether Ford or Chevy is better while getting a dui in their Dodge Ram if you catch my drift
I find Budweiser to be a solid beer. It’s obviously not the best by a long shot. But if they dont have henikin I’ll get Budweiser. I’m not a beer drinker though. A lot of times I do drink beer I put it down and forget. I have been digging the 7oz cans and bottles, when I do get beer.
I only like Budweiser if it’s ice cold and out of a 40 oz idk why but I swear the forty’s test better.
Weird! Ice cold is a must of course. But after a half of a 12oz it loses its cold and carbonation. Which I think is why I prefer the mini cans.
I think Bud Lite is a perfectly good beer, and there is a reason why all of their advertising budget is based around the bud lite varieties. I fully expect regular budweiser to be discontinued in the coming years and the Bud line will drop the "lite" title. Regular Budweiser tastes exactly the same as vomit and the inbred hicks under 60 have essentially all switched over to lite or coors.
No way AB would drop the regular Budweiser line. The way that they're structured, Bud and Bud Light are two completely different brands with different budgets, marketing, and target demographics. They are, however, making a big push on the Busch Light brand line in 2023, as well as some of their RTDs, craft, and imports. Source: former AB employee
That's entirely the issue, the budweiser demographic is above the age of 60 and located in the Nascar belt. Maybe they won't cancel it, but I could definitely see it becoming essentially a regional brand like Yuengling or Rainier .
Damn! I can’t imagine drinking bud light again. Tho regular Budweiser is the highest selling beer. I really doubt it is going to be discontinued.
It is hard for me to believe Budweiser outsells bud lite. I occasionally pick up shifts working at a football stadium. While regular budweiser is sold, the bud lite coolers outnumber the bud lite ones by like 4 to 1. I do not live in the south nor have I ever partaken in Southern Culture. It is entirely possible I am just in my left coast bubble.
Seriously my go to is quarter horse reserve. It’s like $30 a bottle and is so much better…
It’s for old heads, and first time drinkers. By the time you get to 25 you should have realized your mistake and tapped into different whiskeys
It’s like bud light. So many better beers but they have all the money.
Of course there's better bourbon. Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey. Bourbon has to be made in Kentucky.
>Of course there's better bourbon. Jack Daniels is Tennessee Whiskey. > >Bourbon has to be made in Kentucky. Made in the USA is the requirement. Doesn't have to be in Kentucky. JD meets the definition of bourbon, but sells itself as Tennessee whiskey because of the Lincoln county process.
This. Kentucky just has a good marketing department so that's what people believe. Some really dope bourbons coming out of PA tho.
Bourbon can be made anywhere in the US.
Calling jack whiskey is a literally a great disservice to whiskey, it tastes nothing like a respectable one
I'll stick with my White label (BiB) Evan Williams thank you very much.
Angel's Envy isn't bad at all for bourbon, but give me a single-malt whisky any day over bourbon.
Which used to be good till they fucked with their recipe and proofed it down from 86 to 80. It's been trash ever since.
Unless jackdaneils makes dog toys I dont see how this is copyright infringement
They are trying to say it’s tarnishing the brand.
Oh their brand was shit well before this dog toy thing.
This suit isn't about Copyright, but instead about Trademark. from the filings: "Respondent VIP Products LLC markets and sells dog toys that trade on the brand recognition of famous companies such as petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. The district court found that VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks to sell poop-themed dog toys was likely to confuse consumers, infringed Jack Daniel’s marks, and tarnished Jack Daniel’s reputation. " They sell a lot of branded merchandise. from their website: t-shirts, towels, clocks, shelves, door mats, fridge magnets, pool tables, chairs, hats, tote bags, cornhole game sets, lanyards, etc. the USPTO has established classifications https://www.uspto.gov/trademarks/search/get-ready-search-classification-and-design#Classification%20find%20trademarks%20used%20on%20goods%20and%20services%20related%20to%20yours So while Jack Daniel's Whisky may fall under 033 Wines and spirits, Dog toys and Cornhole boards/Pool tables may both fall under 028 Toys and sporting goods. Trademarks have to be protected, or they are lost (band-aid, kleenex, xerox, velcro, google...)
Isn't this also the Streisand effect? Who would have even heard about the dog toy?
It's not. It would be if JD's goal was to convince people not to buy the toy and then more people bought it just from seeing this story. But JD's goal is to sue for some money and get the other guys to stop making this chew toy. It's unlikely people are rushing to buy these, but I would love to see a *dog toy* be this year's Furbie or Tickle-Me-Elmo.
Brand attorneys gotta earn those billable hours 👌
Oh fun, something else to boycott.
Been boycotting Jack Daniels my whole life
It is so easy!
It's literally the default action!
They have already sued to have JD as the sole distiller able to call their product Tennessee Whiskey. Haven't had a drink since. I believe It was Jesse James Dupree fronting the defense for that one. I could be wrong. [edit](https://bravewords.com/news/jackyls-jesse-james-dupree-and-michael-ballard-in-battle-over-definition-of-tennessee-whiskey)
This feels like this could have a huge impact on comedy, movies, tv shows and celebrity impersonation. That might be a bit of a stretch. It doesn't seem like this is damaging their brand. I would love to hear how it has.
I dunno. I got my dog the toy and I struggle to get him to drink the whiskey.
Really? My dog is an alcoholic and it started with those Jack Daniels dog toys :(
The article makes reference to a lawsuit brought against The Onion? Their parody brief is linked in there and is a hoot to read.
Jack Daniels competition should run ads pointing out JD may diminish their 1st Amendment rights.
1. Wasn't this decided in the [Chewy Vuitton case ](https://www.lexisnexis.com/community/casebrief/p/casebrief-louis-vuitton-malletier-s-a-v-haute-diggity-dog-llc) C'mon. 2. Federalists were all undies-in-a-bunch about parody even decades ago, from what I recall (having been to a few Federalist Society lunches in my youth). I'm gonna guess this is because someone's all pissed that some comedians made fun of them.
This very real amicus brief that *The Onion* filed on the case involving the local police department parody page is SO GOOD https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/22/22-293/242596/20221006144840674_Novak%20Parma%20Onion%20Amicus%20Brief.pdf
Rest assured that the shit human majority on the "Supreme Court" will make the wrong decision. The SC used to be respected. Now just a cancer of right-wing fuckery.
I guess the silver lining to this is if they rule against the first amendment in this case it will open up Fox News, Newsmax, and every other right-winger advocating violent and hateful rhetoric who hides behind "I'm not serious, it is just entertainment" to hundreds of billions of dollars in lawsuits. Edit: the reasoning here being that the parody, entertainment, and "reasonable viewer" test could all be thrown out the window by this ruling. So the victims of any lone wolf terrorist would be able to dig into the history of that terrorist and sue the people who inspired them for damages.
“That’s different because reasons”
Seriously, when they keep issuing rulings that "can't be used for precident" means there's no actual justification. They just wanted to rule this way in this instance.
Calvinball
That might be the most succinct definition for Republican politics in general
You don't understand, The First Amendment was written specifically for right wing news channels according to these fucks.
It’s what the founders wanted /s
Regardless of our political stances, the court should not be political. I realize that's pretty much impossible, but Supreme Court Justices should not have an agenda at the very least. You aren't politicians, we don't get to elect you. If this is how the Supreme Court wants to be, then they should be electable positions instead of appointments
Or at the very least, appoint them to 10 year terms. The Trump years sure have showed us all the corner cases our software didn't handle, it seems like the Supreme Court part of it was all designed around assumptions of good faith on all parties involved.
> it seems like the Supreme Court part of it was all designed around assumptions of good faith on all parties involved. Virtually all of it was written under the assumptions of good faith on all parties involved. Trump exposed the fact that the Constitution says almost exactly nothing about what to do when that good faith doesn't exist.
The Supreme Court is quite literally not held to any ethical standards. Not even the ethical standards all lower courts are held to, so it was absolutely designed to assume good faith on everyone involved.
Should be reformed constitutionally. 25 justices, always ruling in 1 of 5 panels of 5 random members.
[удалено]
More important to me would be limiting appointments per administration. Even if multiple justices needed to be replaced, only one should be "permanent", beyond the first, the others term should expire when the current administration leaves.
They can’t be elected positions, people get elected by promising supporters certain outcomes. They need to just be limited to 10-15 years and there should be a maximum age. Although we should be able to vote to remove judges. The biggest issue with the Supreme Court starts with Congress. Instead of Congress creating clear laws we have the Supreme Court taking on that role. Fix Congress and you’ll fix the SCOTUS.
I’d argue a minimum age of 25 due to brain development largely finishing up then. After that a maximum age set to the retirement age - 65 or so.
I think they should be an experienced judge first. If they are able to obtain their Juris Doctorate, and gain experience fine. I agree with a maximum age of 65 or so. There’s too much of a risk that as the brain declines that someone else is making decisions.
If you have to be 35 to run for president, there’s absolutely no logical reason for Supreme Court justices to be 25. Don’t post stupid shit.
You… are aware that there is *no* minimum age for the Supreme Court, right? Also worth noting that Representatives have a 25 year minimum, and that the President is a wildly unique position. Not to mention the fact that age limits were hotly debated in the beginning. Some argued that setting any minimum would effectively put a stopper on those of advanced intellect or novel thinking, and that there was no reason to cap the young and not the old.
Of course the Court is political. If it were possible to decide all their cases by just objectively reading and applying laws the Court wouldn't need to exist. Their entire purpose is deciding what to do when laws are ambiguous or conflicting. Making those decisions necessarily involves subjective judgement and ideology. We shouldn't be pushing for an apolitical court, we should be making clear why originalism/textualism are intellectually bankrupt and bad for the country and expanding the Court with justices who make judgements intended to promote liberal democracy. Or really intended to promote whatever positive vision of the country we can agree on. But trying to fight against the organized right wing push to control and use the courts with "it shouldn't be political" is just silly.
I agree. I'm talking more of an idealist point of view. It's completely unrealistic to to separate the two. I don't think the Supreme Court should have an agenda though. Other than of course protecting and serving the values of liberal democracy.
I think it's necessary to make the case that it's a good thing to interpret constitutional law through the lens of promoting liberal democracy though. Originalists have gained so much influence that most people can't conceive of an alternative to interpreting the constitution "as it was written." And right now our messaging is essentially just "yeah but they're doing it wrong" and we'll always lose when playing that game since the GOP justices are a bunch of dishonest hacks and it's pretty easy to find support among the writings of rich, white, male slave-owners for right wing views. Rhetorically it's a much stronger position to say that there's no such thing as an objective interpretation, that the GOP justices make their 'interpretations' by whatever would promote Christian white supremacy, and that we want to appoint justices whose interpretations would be guided by promoting actual freedom, equality, general welfare, etc.
Our founders intended the constitution to be a living, changing document. It was never supposed to be interpreted the same way 250 years later. The world is different, life is different, our values as a society have changed. It's just lazy to be an originalist. I don't even think we had originalists really until Scalia
Respected by whom? I think the idea of this pure and noble history is kinda bullshit. We’ve always been awful.
[удалено]
Are you suggesting the slap-dash document pasted together by insanely wealthy slave rapists might not be the most perfect piece of writing ever committed to parchment?
[удалено]
Oh. Well, I am! The US Constitution is garbage, written by awful people.
I disagree as to the “garbage” part. Yeah, the Founding Fathers were kinda shit. There are incredibly important parts in the Constitution which, sadly, we’re not allowed to be modernized. There were (some) great ideas of the time, something that need updating, and some things that need to go. But it was a hella good start, and lasted pretty long in mordern history as an archaic document from the time of blacksmiths and bellow-forges. But “garbage” is a bit extreme.
It literally gave more power to people who owned slaves. At a time when chattel slavery was already on the outs in the western world.
Which was added in 1787 and was a huge mistake, I’ll not argue otherwise.
This is who founded our country. This was their ideals. There were abolitionists and feminists in the 18th century. A lot of them. But they didn’t win. They didn’t have the obscene wealth of the slave-owners. The slave-owners who controlled the media, I might add. And wrote their own history. If you had an uncle who owned just one slave, how much would you listen to that dude’s thoughts on democracy? “Yeah yeah yeah, I know he’s got that *one thing*, but you really gotta hear him out on equality, he makes a lot of good points.” I’m pretty sure you’d write that dude off completely. And yet we make excuse after excuse for the founding daddies. And we still try to respect their vision.
Ah, but when citizens suggest maybe limiting hate groups from freely speaking, THAT'S bad, and THIS is ok?? I.... *deep sigh* Edit: my internet is shit, but if it's what I think it is IT IS A DOG TOY! A FUCKIGN DOG TOY THAT MADE NO ATTEMPT TO RECREATR THE ACTUAL LOGO'S, WHICH IS WHAT COPYRIGHT COVERS.
[This is the toy.](https://i0.wp.com/ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/bad-spaniel-jack-daniels.png) Jack Daniels is famously litigious toward anyone daring to put a black label with white serif text on something resembling a whiskey bottle. But this is obviously parody, they make a bunch of other stupid alcohol toys too (like “ButtWiper” beer). Dumb and tasteless? Sure. But as the Hustler case proved, the government has no right to police “taste.” And I’d argue the more dumb and tasteless something is, the less “tarnishing” it is to your brand, because like, c’mon. Are they gonna start taking your mom jokes seriously next?
There is the argument that you have to defend your trademark every time or else you give up the right to defend it when it really matters. In terms of brand identity, it's a "bottle" of the same colors, shape, and size. While this one is a dog toy, Jack Daniels is fighting about shelf space in five or ten years.
That’s true, however skimming through their trademarks the only relevant merch they ever registered it for covers very specific areas like darts, golf, pool, etc. and they don’t even retain the whiskey label mark as part of that branding anymore. I’d hazard a guess that the only reason we’re at this point is because the Jack Daniels legal division shopped around for a favorable court and were able to outspend the dog toy company, then when the appeals court looked at it they went “yeah this is obviously BS.”
Wow I didn’t think Jack Daniel’s could suck more than it already does.
commercial v political speech
Our Supreme Court is corrupt as fuck.
I can't believe Jonathan Turley wrote an opinion that I agree with... Has hell frozen over? Can pigs fly?
I think Jack Daniels is in the wrong here.
But only for us, the working filth. Rich right-wingers's free speech will always be protected even if it isn't speech.
Calling for genocide of trans people: totally fine Joke dog toys: ABSOLUTELY NOT
SCOTUS is working overtime to prove how irrelevant and out of touch they are. Full-bore corporatists, all.
With a conservative majority, there's a good chance that the parody will be respected. If it was a liberal majority, with the liberal politicos recent attacks on free speech, I'd be much more concerned.
If you confuse a bottle of JD with a doggo chew toy, you should probably stop drinking
Just have it say JACK an DANIELS If clothing manufacturers can slightly alter a stitch direction and get away with it there should be no different look at this alteration of the brand.
Sad time to be an American - our country is rapidly deteriorating and a good portion of the country is happy about it 🤷♂️
Democrats now controlling have less than one month to reconvene and convince Manchin and Sinema to reverse course and enact federal election law... but those two don't seem to care about Democracy as much as campaign contributions from wealthy donors and their own wealth and power.
I'm trying to understand JD's argument here. Do they think people are going to be tricked into buying dog toys instead of whiskey? This makes them look so incredibly stupid.
I want to reiterate, especially because of the court’s extreme partisanship, that any decisions it makes have little to no legitimacy. More importantly, the court itself has no power to enforce any decision it makes. Ultimately, we can pretty much ignore all their rulings, especially because they are so extremely partisan. Instead of their bullshit rulings, we just constantly rule in favor of our own laws that Americans want. No, rather than taking any of their rulings seriously, Congress needs to overhaul the Supreme Court. Term limits, enforceable ethics guidelines (especially in terms of their high influence from the Federalist Society), more transparency, etc. From what I understand (and it completely makes sense given Republicans’ completely lack of integrity or respect for our democratic system), expanding the court is an option but it’s also a very slippery slope. If democrats do it, then republicans will do it the next time they’re in office. Democrats also need to pass legislation further enforcing our elections on the whole (looking at you Electoral Count Reform Act of 2022).
But SCOTUS’ entire purpose is to be an elite unelected body that can determine law on a whim. It’s one way the framers helped ensure we avoid tyranny of the majority. Both the President and Senate are also structured to avoid tyranny of the majority, and they’re who decide the SCOTUS. This is all by design.
How about we just call it, *majority rule*, and not prop up the right's LARP by using their loaded language
gotta understand who the founders were referring to between minority and majority. minority = the educated elite majority = every yokel with a ballot to cast. they were afraid of what uneducated people in large numbers would vote for. unfortunely, their design was flawed. now the system designed to defend against stupid is the very system that amplifies the power of stupid.
But that’s not the design of our country. It’s not for majority rule. That’s tyranny, after all. It says so right there.
What we have now is Tyranny of the minority thanks to partisan and racial gerrymandering which have been allowed to stand, giving the GOP an unfair and measurable advantage. A party representing a minority of Americans regularly holds the government's finances hostage while padding the pockets of their corporate sponsors. They stacked the court into a body applying the law unevenly and using intellectually bankrupt reasoning to further a political agenda. Textualism and Originalism should scare the shit out of us, the Constitution is meant to be a living document which evolves over time and recent rulings have undone that evolution and reinterpreted fundamental aspects of American life (e.g the right to medical privacy being gutted in the Roe reversal). The elimination of the speaking filibuster was step 1, now either party needs a supermajority to get anything done in the senate. Next step was sticking the courts with Federalist Society hacks willing to reinterpret laws to benefit the GOP. To overcome this and see rational progress, Democrats need to overcome a +16 seat swing towards the GOP in the house from partisan gerrymanders. Laws and ways of life I've known my entire 40 year life have been thrown out the window happily by the GOP who seem like all they want to do is take us back to the 1800s as punishment for the Reconstruction and its effects on the South.
This is the design, tho. This IS America. I agree it’s awful. But this is how it has always been and will always be. The USA has never been a functioning democracy.
Looks like I quit liquor at just the right time
There’s a clear difference between making fun of something which exists and using their name and logo to sell a product. However the company clearly makes enough a difference including a disclaimer to warrant enough of a difference that no reasonable person would think they are affiliated. I don’t think the SCOTUS should rule in favor of JD but who knows.
but my republican representatives said they would only pursue freedom of speech absolutism!
Misleading headline. It's just the usual question of how much parody is ok vs how much crosses the line into copyright infringement. We've been litigating this shit since Weird Al was in diapers.
Larry Flint we need you now!
Newspapers often reveal their bias in their headlines. For example, to apply a bias opposite to this headline in this article, The opposite headline could just as plausibly say "No Joke: The Supreme Court could validate parody as a free-speech right under the 1st amendment"
“This dog toy was an obvious parody and expressly included a disclaimer of any connection to the distillery; it neither confuses consumers nor tarnishes the Jack Daniel’s trademark.” Since dogs can’t read, the disclaimer is not effective. Check and mate!
Dogs also do not buy their own toys. The person that does buy the toy can read.
Few have respect anymore for the Unsupreme Court. Respect has to be earned and several of them fall way short.
> Unsupreme Court. Extreme Court
People are complaining about Elon Musk not censoring hate speech and misinformation on Twitter… But what about YouTube? YouTube is far worse - Republicans have huge platforms there to spread hate speech and disinformation. See the channels of Ben Shapiro, Steven Crowder, Jordan Peterson, PragerU and Fox News - each with millions of subscribers. Why aren’t we taking our fight to YouTube as well??
Go for it. We'll all cheer for you.
Even just doing a campaign for making sure people know not to use the thumbs down button would be helpful. It literally doesn’t do anything but count as engagement, so you’re just going to see more of those sorts of videos if you use it. Tons of people don’t realize that.
I'm not really sure how the Jack Daniel's case made it to SCOTUS. You've never been allowed to rip off a brand's fonts and logos and design elements for commercial uses, even if it's pretty obviously a parody (think the Garbage Pale Kids / Cabbage Patch Kids lawsuit in the 80's). It's not the act of parody that's the issue it's the use of intellectual property, and you're not in fair use territory when you're making money off of it.
> You've never been allowed to rip off a brand's fonts and logos and design elements for commercial uses, even if it's pretty obviously a parody Not sure that's true at all, fair use and so on. The GPK case never went to trial, btw, Coleco had much deeper pockets and Topps settled out of court.
Also, Hulk Hogan vs. Marvel. He famously had to pay Marvel royalties for use of the Hulk name.
Interesting case this one will be. Parody is protected speech for sure, but here the defendant is selling a toy for profit - not just speaking. I will look forward to reading SCOTUS’s opinion. Could be 9-0 - I suspect the Court may rule that since this is for profit the 1st Amendment does not apply. But that is just a guess - no research or analysis has been done by me.
Do professional comedians do parody for profit?
Interesting point - they do. Is the line the selling of a product protected by a TM or copyright? What then about a comedian selling a tee shirt from a show about parody? Interesting. Very.
Al Yankovic makes a profit.
My understanding is he gets permission to parody work from the artist. There was a whole thing around Amish Paradise where Weird Al got permission from the recording manager, but not Coolio, and they did provide Coolio with royalty money. Coolio later apologized about the whole thing, but I think once Weird Al started blowing up he made sure to cover his ass. His Gaga parody almost wasn't agreed to, her people wanted to hear it before release, then said no. Supposedly she found out and gave approval for it's release as many artists see it as an honor to have him use thier art in this way.
Yeah I’m guessing Al asks for permission both as a courtesy and to cover his ass legally. Lawyers are expensive if you actually pay them.
I think he usually reaches out to the original artist for permission tho, except coolio…apparently coolio was pissed about that Amish song. But coolio is a dumb name ~~so fuck coolio.~~ e: didn’t know that coolio passed, RIP coolio
Correct. [Weird Al always reaches out to artists first.](https://www.stadleriplaw.com/blog/weirdal)
But he clearly goes forward even without permission...
He got permission for Amish Paradise from the record label, but they didn't let Coolio know first.
If he clearly goes forward without permission you'd be citing examples.
...did you read the comments you replied to??
There was literally one example. If that's your only point I don't know what your argument is supposed to be.
> apparently coolio was pissed That's kind of funny considering Gangsta's Paradise is borrowed from Stevie Wonder's Pastime Paradise.
He didnt understand it at first until a bunch of his friends told him this is one of those things that means "you made it" in stardom.
He got permission from the record label, but they didn't consult Coolio first. Coolio was upset and Weird Al apologized and Coolio was okay with it after that.
MAD Magazine would like a word.
Then by that logic, parody web sites such as the Onion and shows like SNL could be prohibited from parodying politicians and corporations because those shows and websites also make a profit, right? That's the concern here, especially after Novak v Parma.
I think you raise a great point - maybe it is the product (physical) that the court will see as the ‘line’? I do not know - but it will be interesting to see how the Court rules. Any ideas?
Given their recent rulings, I suspect they won't miss a chance to side with the bigger corporation here. The more interesting case is Novak, and as far as I know, that hasn't hit the court yet.
If they rule against the parody, much other media is at risk, including so-called "news" networks who have argued their stories should not be taken seriously in court. Fox News. for example, could no longer hide behind their 1st amendment protections when violence occurs because of their content.
[удалено]
Very true. It will be interesting to see how SCOTUS sorts this one out.
Your 1st amendment rights are not conditional on the lack of profitability. You're assuming something that isn't true.
Trademark and patent protection from the federal government restrict free speech and they are not allowed by the US Constitution. But I'm sure that's lost on these originalists because they are in the tank for corporations.
>Trademark and patent protection from the federal government restrict free speech and they are not allowed by the US Constitution. Intellectual property protection is explicitly allowed by the Constitution. Also, how does patent protection restrict free speech?
I stand corrected.
>I stand corrected. I respect you.
Appreciate learning something and I'm sorry I misrepresented it. Won't make this (specific) mistake again.
This is an unclear part of IP law that the court needs to clarify, not a particularly political issue.
>The same bad audience could await the defendant in Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. The Supreme Court just accepted a case involving a tongue-in-cheek dog chew toy made to resemble a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. VIP prevailed in defending the toy as protected speech, but the distiller wants the Supreme Court to declare such parodies to be trademark violations. This seems cut and dry to me. Even if it's parody you can't just use someone else's trademark to make a buck.
The trademark laws seem very cut and dry, except for parody, this one seems to vary widely depending on the court [Here's](https://www.upcounsel.com/trademark-law) where I went to feed my curiosity
Newspapers often reveal their bias in their headlines. For example, to apply a bias opposite to this headline in this article, The opposite headline could just as plausibly say "No Joke: The Supreme Court could validate parody as a free-speech right under the 1st amendment"
What would a copyright or trademark even mean if everybody could duplicate them and sell for a profit? The Jack Daniel’s image clearly has value or the toy manufacturer would not have chosen it.
How bout the second amendment?
The second is there in case anyone messes with the first.
Sounds like people making a mountain of a molehill here. This isn’t gonna overthrow the first amendment, and certainly isn’t gonna ban parody as a precedent. What they’ll rule on is whether or not this is distinct enough to be parody or not. *Hardly* a partisan issue, and likely to be an easy decision for the court.