5 ms·

It's still a muddy situation... On one hand, it is intentionally made to look like a Jack Daniels bottle... on the other hand it's not nearly the same product

It's still a muddy situation... On one hand, it is intentionally made to look like a Jack Daniels bottle... on the other hand it's not nearly the same product type and it won't interfere with product sales for actual Jack Daniels company. If we look at other similar concepts, can an apple (=fruit, or juice or strudel, etc.) company use an image of an apple with a bite taken out? Or will apple get grounds to sue?

jkaplowitz 3y ago
Jack Daniels invented their distinctive design, and this was specifically imitating that. There is no owner of the concept of what an apple looks like, with or with a bite taken out of it, except for the specific logo images copyrighted by someone like a Apple Inc. What’s relevant here is that the chance is illegally high that someone who looks at the general appearance of the dog toy but doesn’t take the time to read the actual words might think, “oh cool, Jack Daniels is releasing a dog toy!” rather than that another company is parodying Jack Daniels. It’s exactly this kind of confusion which trademark law is meant to prevent. Even someone who reads the words on the toy might think, “oh cool, Jack Daniels has enough of a sense of humor to make fun of themselves on a dog toy.” It’s legitimately not obvious that the toy isn’t from them.
- P_I_Staker 3y ago
  [flagged]
- phpisthebest 3y ago
  [flagged]
  - snapplebobapple 3y ago
    It's the George Carlin defense of trademark. "Looks how dumb the average person is, then realize half of them are dumber than that your honor! Ergo, ceteris paribus, E pluribus unum, everyone is violating our copyright/patent/trademark and all should pay us royalties."
  - djbusby 3y ago
    Nah. Cause well known brands can and do put/share-out their identity on all kinds of stupid shit. Therefore the Whiskey to DogToy boundary is very thin.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
TheBigSalad 3y ago
I don't know anything about the law, but this should be the basis. This company is not taking anything away from JD or confusing anyone, so it should be allowed. If it was an actual bottle of liquor you'd have an argument. If it was a dog toy called Jack Daniels you'd have an argument. It's a dog toy called "Bad Spaniels". I don't understand why Jack Daniels even cares.
- wildzzz 3y ago
  Jack Daniels' counsel cares because they can bill an enormous amount of hours bringing a case to the supreme court.
- jkaplowitz 3y ago
  What if the Jack Daniels company had introduced a self-parodic dog toy called Bad Spaniels with the same design? Wouldn’t that actually be pretty good marketing for them? I think lots of whiskey-loving dog owners would buy that toy from Jack Daniels and be quite happy about it. How would a casual observer distinguish that possibility from the true scenario, when the design was intentionally quite similar to the Jack Daniels design and a self-parody is not at all unlikely? And if you accept that this isn’t easy to distinguish: if the third-party Bad Spaniels toy has some safety problem that causes dogs or small kids to suffer and requires a recall, wouldn’t that unjustly hurt the reputation of Jack Daniels for anyone who does get confused as to the origin of the product? Makes sense to me that they’d care. This kind of thing is the whole point of trademark law.

jkaplowitz 3y ago

Jack Daniels invented their distinctive design, and this was specifically imitating that. There is no owner of the concept of what an apple looks like, with or with a bite taken out of it, except for the specific logo images copyrighted by someone like a Apple Inc. What’s relevant here is that the chance is illegally high that someone who looks at the general appearance of the dog toy but doesn’t take the time to read the actual words might think, “oh cool, Jack Daniels is releasing a dog toy!” rather than that another company is parodying Jack Daniels. It’s exactly this kind of confusion which trademark law is meant to prevent. Even someone who reads the words on the toy might think, “oh cool, Jack Daniels has enough of a sense of humor to make fun of themselves on a dog toy.” It’s legitimately not obvious that the toy isn’t from them.

P_I_Staker 3y ago
[flagged]
phpisthebest 3y ago
[flagged]
- snapplebobapple 3y ago
  It's the George Carlin defense of trademark. "Looks how dumb the average person is, then realize half of them are dumber than that your honor! Ergo, ceteris paribus, E pluribus unum, everyone is violating our copyright/patent/trademark and all should pay us royalties."
- djbusby 3y ago
  Nah. Cause well known brands can and do put/share-out their identity on all kinds of stupid shit. Therefore the Whiskey to DogToy boundary is very thin.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

TheBigSalad 3y ago

I don't know anything about the law, but this should be the basis. This company is not taking anything away from JD or confusing anyone, so it should be allowed. If it was an actual bottle of liquor you'd have an argument. If it was a dog toy called Jack Daniels you'd have an argument. It's a dog toy called "Bad Spaniels". I don't understand why Jack Daniels even cares.

wildzzz 3y ago
Jack Daniels' counsel cares because they can bill an enormous amount of hours bringing a case to the supreme court.
jkaplowitz 3y ago
What if the Jack Daniels company had introduced a self-parodic dog toy called Bad Spaniels with the same design? Wouldn’t that actually be pretty good marketing for them? I think lots of whiskey-loving dog owners would buy that toy from Jack Daniels and be quite happy about it. How would a casual observer distinguish that possibility from the true scenario, when the design was intentionally quite similar to the Jack Daniels design and a self-parody is not at all unlikely? And if you accept that this isn’t easy to distinguish: if the third-party Bad Spaniels toy has some safety problem that causes dogs or small kids to suffer and requires a recall, wouldn’t that unjustly hurt the reputation of Jack Daniels for anyone who does get confused as to the origin of the product? Makes sense to me that they’d care. This kind of thing is the whole point of trademark law.