Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
infringed upon its trademarks. The manufacturer made a line of dog toys
making fun of famous beverages.

They just won at Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP
Products. Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous majority.

She analyzes a circuit court opinion used by the trial court as
precedent, Rogers (as in Ginger Rogers) v. Grimaldi, who sued a producer
to prevent his use of "Ginger and Fred" as a title for a movie about to
cabaret dancers. Rogers lost.

She said the key point of trademark law, the Lanham Act, is to make sure
the public isn't confused about the source of a product or service.

The Rogers opinion is about free speech, but it's not free speech if the
public is confused about who the manufacturer is; the Rogers opinion
cannot be used in that way.

In this case, the dog toy, about the same size as a whiskey bottle, with a
similar shape and similar label, the most important feature of the dog
toy is the purpose for its use of the trademrks "as a designation of source
for its own goods".

Parody has no first amendment protection when the copied mark is used in
that way.

https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spoofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/

It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.

Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
> infringed upon its trademarks. The manufacturer made a line of dog toys
> making fun of famous beverages.
>
> They just won at Supreme Court in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP
> Products. Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous majority.
>
> She analyzes a circuit court opinion used by the trial court as
> precedent, Rogers (as in Ginger Rogers) v. Grimaldi, who sued a producer
> to prevent his use of "Ginger and Fred" as a title for a movie about to
> cabaret dancers. Rogers lost.
>
> She said the key point of trademark law, the Lanham Act, is to make sure
> the public isn't confused about the source of a product or service.
>
> The Rogers opinion is about free speech, but it's not free speech if the
> public is confused about who the manufacturer is; the Rogers opinion
> cannot be used in that way.
>
> In this case, the dog toy, about the same size as a whiskey bottle, with a
> similar shape and similar label, the most important feature of the dog
> toy is the purpose for its use of the trademrks "as a designation of source
> for its own goods".
>
> Parody has no first amendment protection when the copied mark is used in
> that way.
>
> https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spoofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/
>
> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
>

This is the kind of thing where you’d think they’d be better off, licensing
the dog toy and getting a dollar for every one sold or something.

--
The last thing I want to do is hurt you, but it is still on my list.

In article
<817967154.708241779.338979.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:

> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
> > Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
> > infringed upon its trademarks. The manufacturer made a line of dog toys
> > making fun of famous beverages.
> >
> > They just won at Supreme Court in Jack Danielâ??s Properties v. VIP
> > Products. Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous majority.
> >
> > She analyzes a circuit court opinion used by the trial court as
> > precedent, Rogers (as in Ginger Rogers) v. Grimaldi, who sued a producer
> > to prevent his use of "Ginger and Fred" as a title for a movie about to
> > cabaret dancers. Rogers lost.
> >
> > She said the key point of trademark law, the Lanham Act, is to make sure
> > the public isn't confused about the source of a product or service.
> >
> > The Rogers opinion is about free speech, but it's not free speech if the
> > public is confused about who the manufacturer is; the Rogers opinion
> > cannot be used in that way.
> >
> > In this case, the dog toy, about the same size as a whiskey bottle, with a
> > similar shape and similar label, the most important feature of the dog
> > toy is the purpose for its use of the trademrks "as a designation of source
> > for its own goods".
> >
> > Parody has no first amendment protection when the copied mark is used in
> > that way.
> >
> >
> > https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spo
> > ofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/
> >
> > It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
> >
>
> This is the kind of thing where you¹d think they¹d be better off, licensing
> the dog toy and getting a dollar for every one sold or something.

Exactly right. It's not as if they don't already license their name
and image.

https://www.everythingjack.com/

On 6/12/2023 8:51 AM, A Friend wrote:
> In article
> <817967154.708241779.338979.anim8rfsk-cox.net@news.easynews.com>,
> anim8rfsk <anim8rfsk@cox.net> wrote:
>
>> Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>> Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
>>> infringed upon its trademarks. The manufacturer made a line of dog toys
>>> making fun of famous beverages.
>>>
>>> They just won at Supreme Court in Jack Danielâ??s Properties v. VIP
>>> Products. Kagan wrote the opinion for a unanimous majority.
>>>
>>> She analyzes a circuit court opinion used by the trial court as
>>> precedent, Rogers (as in Ginger Rogers) v. Grimaldi, who sued a producer
>>> to prevent his use of "Ginger and Fred" as a title for a movie about to
>>> cabaret dancers. Rogers lost.
>>>
>>> She said the key point of trademark law, the Lanham Act, is to make sure
>>> the public isn't confused about the source of a product or service.
>>>
>>> The Rogers opinion is about free speech, but it's not free speech if the
>>> public is confused about who the manufacturer is; the Rogers opinion
>>> cannot be used in that way.
>>>
>>> In this case, the dog toy, about the same size as a whiskey bottle, with a
>>> similar shape and similar label, the most important feature of the dog
>>> toy is the purpose for its use of the trademrks "as a designation of source
>>> for its own goods".
>>>
>>> Parody has no first amendment protection when the copied mark is used in
>>> that way.
>>>
>>>
>>> https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spo
>>> ofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/
>>>
>>> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
>>>
>>
>> This is the kind of thing where you¹d think they¹d be better off, licensing
>> the dog toy and getting a dollar for every one sold or something.
>
>
> Exactly right. It's not as if they don't already license their name
> and image.
>
> https://www.everythingjack.com/

They may have wanted the precedent of the victory in court.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On 6/12/2023 8:51 AM, A Friend wrote:
> > In article
> > <817967154.708241779.33...@news.easynews.com>,
> > anim8rfsk <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Adam H. Kerman <a...@chinet.com> wrote:
> >>> Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
> >>> infringed upon its trademarks. The manufacturer made a line of dog toys
> >>> making fun of famous beverages.
> >>>
> >>> They just won at Supreme Court in Jack Danielâ??s Properties v. VIP

> >>> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.

A win for silly Americans.

> > Exactly right. It's not as if they don't already license their name
> > and image.
> >
> > https://www.everythingjack.com/

> They may have wanted the precedent of the victory in court.

Booze takes precedent over boycott. A win for silly Americans.

https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-state-government-kansas-arizona-israel-9b34e1a01b24f4b6960ca6ed5e71da38

----------

Make Uhmerka Drunk Again with Jerusalem Syndrome

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g4Z2MGv7DLU

On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 08:51:43 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:

>> > https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spo
>> > ofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/
>> >
>> > It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
>> >
>>
>> This is the kind of thing where you¹d think they¹d be better off, licensing
>> the dog toy and getting a dollar for every one sold or something.
>
>
>Exactly right. It's not as if they don't already license their name
>and image.
>
>https://www.everythingjack.com/

While I agree with you I suspect they would have gotten a better
receiption is they first made a proposal to the makes of Jack Daniels
with such an offer rather than hoping to win an expensive lawsuit.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 11:42:19 AM UTC-4, chromebook test wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, moviePi wrote:
> > On 6/12/2023 8:51 AM, Friend wrote:
> > > In article
> > > <817967154.708241779.33...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > animmonkey <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >> Adam H. Kerman <an AIPAC Shill...@chinet.com> wrote:

> > >>> Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and

> > >>> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.

> A win for silly Americans.

> Booze takes precedent over boycott. A win for silly Americans.

> https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-state-government-kansas-arizona-israel-9b34e1a01b24f4b6960ca6ed5e71da38

The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to step into a legal fight over state laws that require contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel.

Recommended Citation: Ronald Mann, Jack Daniel’s wins big in challenge to spoofing “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 9, 2023, 11:20 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spoofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/

tags: america gets what it deserves

On 6/12/2023 10:21 AM, The Horny Goat wrote:
> On Mon, 12 Jun 2023 08:51:43 -0400, A Friend <nope@noway.com> wrote:
>
>>>> https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spo
>>>> ofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/
>>>>
>>>> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is the kind of thing where you¹d think they¹d be better off, licensing
>>> the dog toy and getting a dollar for every one sold or something.
>>
>>
>> Exactly right. It's not as if they don't already license their name
>> and image.
>>
>> https://www.everythingjack.com/
>
> While I agree with you I suspect they would have gotten a better
> receiption is they first made a proposal to the makes of Jack Daniels
> with such an offer rather than hoping to win an expensive lawsuit.
>
That doesn't work out well either. JD would have rejected it.

On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 1:27:33 PM UTC-4, chromebook test wrote:
> On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 11:42:19 AM UTC-4, chromebook test wrote:
> > On Monday, June 12, 2023 at 10:41:11 AM UTC-4, moviePi wrote:
> > > On 6/12/2023 8:51 AM, Friend wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <817967154.708241779.33...@news.easynews.com>,
> > > > animmonkey <anim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> Adam H. Kerman <an AIPAC Shill...@chinet.com> wrote:
>
> > > >>> Jack Daniel's was not amused at a dog toy that spoofed its brand and
> > > >>> It's too bad. I think it's rather amusing.
>
> > A win for silly Americans.
> > Booze takes precedent over boycott. A win for silly Americans.
>
>
> > https://apnews.com/article/politics-arkansas-state-government-kansas-arizona-israel-9b34e1a01b24f4b6960ca6ed5e71da38
> The Supreme Court on Tuesday refused to step into a legal fight over state laws that require contractors to pledge not to boycott Israel.
>
>
> Recommended Citation: Ronald Mann, Jack Daniel’s wins big in challenge to spoofing “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, SCOTUSblog (Jun. 9, 2023, 11:20 AM), https://www.scotusblog.com/2023/06/jack-daniels-wins-big-in-challenge-to-spoofing-bad-spaniels-dog-toy/

ISRAELI FORCES DELIBERATELY KILLED PALESTINIAN AMERICAN JOURNALIST, REPORT SHOWS
https://theintercept.com/2022/09/20/shireen-abu-akleh-killing-israel/

> tags: america gets what it deserves

This buds for you

https://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/03/jackdanielsimage-scaled.jpg

tags: looking for that word that means 'laugh while crying over someone's utter stupidity', any help from the wordsmiths or legal department of RAT?