The IP of Everything Podcast - Episode 22 - The IP of Dog Toys
The Briefing: Ninth Circuit Pulls Back Rogers Test in Light of Jack Daniels Decision
Supreme Court Miniseries: Zero Spoof Whiskey
Podcast - The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Bad Spaniels in the Doghouse – Jack Daniels Prevails in Trademark Fight
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Bad Spaniels in the Doghouse – Jack Daniels Prevails in Trademark Fight
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - 2nd Circuit to Determine if Rogers Test Fits Shoe Trade Dress Dispute Between MISCHF and Vans
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: 2nd Circuit to Determine if Rogers Test Fits Shoe Trade Dress Dispute Between MISCHF and Vans
Podcast: The Briefing by the IP Law Blog - Heirs of Evel Knievel Clearly Do Not Have a Friend in Disney
The Briefing by the IP Law Blog: Heirs of Evel Knievel Clearly Do Not Have a Friend in Disney
In Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a chewable “Bad Spaniels” dog toy shaped like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey violated Jack Daniel’s trademark rights. VIP claimed its dog...more
On June 13, the Supreme Court issued an opinion in Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. ____ (2024), a case involving a plaintiff’s attempt to register the trademark “Trump too small” (a reference to a key political issue in the 2016...more
Mischief Afoot: Vans Kicks MSCHF’s Main Defense to Trademark Infringement to the Curb in Art Sneaker Dispute - If the shoe fits, wear it. Or so the Second Circuit mused in a recent decision, in which it “re-boxed” an art...more
After enjoying several decades of acceptance across many circuit courts, the future of the so-called “Rogers test” is uncertain. Established in the landmark Second Circuit case Rogers v. Grimaldi, Rogers is a two-step test...more
We previously discussed the United States Supreme Court’s June 2023 Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products, LLC decision, which altered the way the “Rogers test,” a doctrine designed to protect First Amendment...more
In the wake of the Supreme Court’s decision in Jack Daniels Properties Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140 (2023), the Ninth Circuit reversed its earlier decision affirming that a publication called Punchbowl News did not...more
Explore the legal intricacies of dog toy trademarks such as Chewy Vuitton and Bad Spaniels. Uncover key cases, including a pivotal Supreme Court showdown, with implications for both canines and intellectual property at large....more
As Scott Hervey previously wrote on the IP Law Blog, the holding in the Supreme Court case Jack Daniels Properties v. VIP Products limits the applicability of the Rogers test. Scott and Jamie Lincenberg talk about this case...more
The holding in the Supreme Court case, Jack Daniels Properties v VIP Products, the case of the infringing Bad Spaniels dog toy, limits the applicability of the Rogers test. A recent case in the Ninth Circuit, Punchbowl Inc v....more
In response to the Supreme Court of the United States’ ruling in Jack Daniel’s, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reconsidered its 2022 decision in Punchbowl v. AJ Press and determined that Jack Daniel’s reset...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction enjoining use of a trademark and trade dress associated with an iconic sneaker design over a First Amendment...more
In its first opportunity to apply the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products LLC, which held that the First Amendment did not protect infringing works that “use [the complainant’s] mark [...more
Seeing an opportunity to capitalize on comedic freedom of speech and parodistic liberties (think Weird Al Yankovic and Aqua’s Barbie Girl hit song), a pet toy maker decided to create a chewable, squeaky dog toy shaped like...more
The US Supreme Court rejected First Amendment defenses raised by the maker of whiskey bottle-shaped dog chew toys branded BAD SPANIELS based on claims of trademark infringement and dilution of JACK DANIEL’S marks. ...more
The Bottom Line - The U.S. Supreme Court recently decided that, when using another’s trademark “as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods,” one is not entitled to a First Amendment defense even if the use...more
On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, holding that parody trademarks do not receive special First Amendment protection when they function as...more
In the Public Interest is excited to present a miniseries examining notable decisions recently issued by the United States Supreme Court. The first episode in the miniseries welcomes WilmerHale Partner Thomas Saunders, who...more
On June 8, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court clarified two intellectual property issues in deciding Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC: 1. When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source...more
The U.S. Supreme Court provided clarification on the application of the Rogers test in relation to Jack Daniels v. VIP Products. Scott Hervey and Jamie Lincenberg talk about this ruling on this episode of The Briefing by the...more
For the full background, see our prior article, Can The Parody Defense Protect Against Trademark Infringement When The Use Is Commercial In Nature? ...more
To read the headlines of many media and legal news articles reporting on the Supreme Court’s recent decision in VIP Products, LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., you’d think that the Court held that the dog chew-toy called...more
The Bad Spaniels and MetaBirkin cases clarify that artistic expression is no foolproof defense to trademark infringement. Brand owners welcomed the decision the US Supreme Court rendered in Jack Daniel's Properties Inc....more
On June 8, 2023, brand owners breathed a sigh of relief with the Supreme Court’s unanimous ruling consistent with prior jurisprudence that potential infringers of a famous trademark are not precluded from liability by merely...more
The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, vacated a decision by the Ninth Circuit that in effect barred trademark infringement and dilution claims against the use of a trademark that parodies the plaintiff’s trademark....more