3 ms·

Why did people buy the dog toy? Pretty sure it's because it looked like JD, which is highly recognizable. If it was just a generic bottle that said "liquor" on

Why did people buy the dog toy? Pretty sure it's because it looked like JD, which is highly recognizable. If it was just a generic bottle that said "liquor" on it, I would guess that sales would have been lower. I agree with you - seems pretty clear that they're profiting off JD's image, and it's tough to call this any meaningful kind of parody that deserves protection.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago
I think it's just as meaningful of a parody as a weird al song. And this is just trademark not copyright. You're supposed to be able to use and reference trademarks as long as it can't be confused as the original. Just like you can use a famous person's name to make fun of them. Does this mean it is now illegal to make a red and white dildo and call it Cock-a-cola? What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit?
- loeg 3y ago
  FYI: Weird Al isn't a useful point of comparison, because he licenses the songs he parodies from the rights-owners.
- smt88 3y ago
  How is a dog toy a parody of Jack Daniels? What is the content of the speech/commentary? If you look at the actual toy, it's just an exact replica of a Jack Daniels bottle with a few words changed. It doesn't make fun of Jack Daniels or drinking culture or anything at all.
- macintux 3y ago
  > What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit? I think if you start a business and trademark a slightly distorted version of their face for your business, yes, you’ll face problems. The 1st amendment protections for being able to talk shit about a politician seem in no danger from this ruling.
- kemayo 3y ago
  To wildly generalize, my understanding is that one of the (legal) components for parody is that you need to be actually commenting on the thing you're parodying. Just referencing something that exists in pop culture doesn't mean it's protected parody. I.e. this dog toy wasn't saying anything about Jack Daniels. It was just a dog toy that looked like a dog-poop themed bottle of Jack Daniels. If it was part of some general message of "Jack Daniels is dogshit", I believe that it'd have been unambiguously protected.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - simiones 3y ago
    The SC actually decided something else. They decided that you can't defend your product's only branding as parody, whatever form it takes. If something is your trademark, you have to defend it from being an infringement of someone else's trademark solely on the basis of customer confusion (i.e. prove that the accuser is wrong in saying that their customers would buy your products in confusion). You can use someone else's trademarks in your parody, but only if that parody is branded differently (e.g. the Barbie Girl song was not branded using Barbie logos, it was using AQUA's logos).
- ghaff 3y ago
  >Does this mean it is now illegal to make a red and white dildo and call it Cock-a-cola? I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing yes. Note that, as with somewhat related Dr. Seuss copyright cases [1], some of it relates to whether something is actually a satire/parody or whether you're just taking advantage of someone else's IP to sell something--even if it's a non-competitive something. As someone else noted, it's not clear that Weird Al's songs would in general be OK if he didn't license the source material. [1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/who-s-who-dr-seuss-and-copyright-law-6219828/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/who-s-who-dr-seuss-and-cop...
- idopmstuff 3y ago
  > I think it's just as meaningful of a parody as a weird al song. This is just taking the exact JD bottle shape and logo, changing a couple of words and making it a plush toy. A Weird Al song is an entirely new song, written and performed to the beat of the current song. The difference is a lot of hours of time and creativity. > You're supposed to be able to use and reference trademarks as long as it can't be confused as the original. Songs can't be trademarked, so this isn't a relevant comparison in any case. > What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit? Again, you generally cannot trademark your likeness. There are exceptions for its commercial use, but the ability to "talk shit" about politicians is highly protected.
ljm 3y ago
Aldi thrive on this by selling their own branded stuff that looks really similar to big name brands, even down to the style of packaging. Dogebrau Anarchist IPA isn’t half bad compared to the expensive alternative.

dec0dedab0de 3y ago

I think it's just as meaningful of a parody as a weird al song. And this is just trademark not copyright. You're supposed to be able to use and reference trademarks as long as it can't be confused as the original. Just like you can use a famous person's name to make fun of them. Does this mean it is now illegal to make a red and white dildo and call it Cock-a-cola? What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit?

loeg 3y ago
FYI: Weird Al isn't a useful point of comparison, because he licenses the songs he parodies from the rights-owners.
smt88 3y ago
How is a dog toy a parody of Jack Daniels? What is the content of the speech/commentary? If you look at the actual toy, it's just an exact replica of a Jack Daniels bottle with a few words changed. It doesn't make fun of Jack Daniels or drinking culture or anything at all.
macintux 3y ago
> What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit? I think if you start a business and trademark a slightly distorted version of their face for your business, yes, you’ll face problems. The 1st amendment protections for being able to talk shit about a politician seem in no danger from this ruling.
kemayo 3y ago
To wildly generalize, my understanding is that one of the (legal) components for parody is that you need to be actually commenting on the thing you're parodying. Just referencing something that exists in pop culture doesn't mean it's protected parody. I.e. this dog toy wasn't saying anything about Jack Daniels. It was just a dog toy that looked like a dog-poop themed bottle of Jack Daniels. If it was part of some general message of "Jack Daniels is dogshit", I believe that it'd have been unambiguously protected.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- simiones 3y ago
  The SC actually decided something else. They decided that you can't defend your product's only branding as parody, whatever form it takes. If something is your trademark, you have to defend it from being an infringement of someone else's trademark solely on the basis of customer confusion (i.e. prove that the accuser is wrong in saying that their customers would buy your products in confusion). You can use someone else's trademarks in your parody, but only if that parody is branded differently (e.g. the Barbie Girl song was not branded using Barbie logos, it was using AQUA's logos).
ghaff 3y ago
>Does this mean it is now illegal to make a red and white dildo and call it Cock-a-cola? I'm not a lawyer but I'm guessing yes. Note that, as with somewhat related Dr. Seuss copyright cases [1], some of it relates to whether something is actually a satire/parody or whether you're just taking advantage of someone else's IP to sell something--even if it's a non-competitive something. As someone else noted, it's not clear that Weird Al's songs would in general be OK if he didn't license the source material. [1] https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/who-s-who-dr-seuss-and-copyright-law-6219828/ https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/who-s-who-dr-seuss-and-cop...
idopmstuff 3y ago
> I think it's just as meaningful of a parody as a weird al song. This is just taking the exact JD bottle shape and logo, changing a couple of words and making it a plush toy. A Weird Al song is an entirely new song, written and performed to the beat of the current song. The difference is a lot of hours of time and creativity. > You're supposed to be able to use and reference trademarks as long as it can't be confused as the original. Songs can't be trademarked, so this isn't a relevant comparison in any case. > What if politicians start trademarking their names and faces and start suing people for talking shit? Again, you generally cannot trademark your likeness. There are exceptions for its commercial use, but the ability to "talk shit" about politicians is highly protected.

ljm 3y ago

Aldi thrive on this by selling their own branded stuff that looks really similar to big name brands, even down to the style of packaging. Dogebrau Anarchist IPA isn’t half bad compared to the expensive alternative.