4 ms·

I don't think so. Jack Daniels spent a lot of money to make their logo and bottle widely known. Another company is 1) trying to make money off of that spend,

by JackFr 3y ago

I don't think so. Jack Daniels spent a lot of money to make their logo and bottle widely known. Another company is 1) trying to make money off of that spend, and 2) destroying value created by Jack Daniels. Trademark law is a relatively non-contentious aspect of intellectual property as is evidenced by the 9-0 vote.

derbOac 3y ago
But the question is confusion over product in the same product area. It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an actual Jack Daniels product. Also, unanimity per se doesn't necessarily mean the court is on the right side of things: I'm not sure that positions on, say, abortion necessarily translates into trademark positions. One nuance in this that seems to be lost though if I'm recalling the case correctly is that this isn't deciding the case, it's just saying it can't automatically be dismissed pre trial. So maybe that's where the unanimity comes into play. Still, between this and the Worhol case I'm concerned. Overall this doesn't seem like a good path to be going down in my personal opinion. To me a dog toy that's clearly a parody should be protected speech, probably more clearly than other things. It feels to me like there's this emerging zeitgeist of "commercial entities are above real criticism because they might be financially injured" which is absurd, and more than an individual would enjoy in terms of protection. Let's say you made a Trump brand dog toy? Would it be reasonable to say that is not protected speech because it infringes on his trademark?
- s1artibartfast 3y ago
  >It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an actual Jack Daniels product The Supreme Court did not rule on this question. In fact it seems like they agree with you. The decision is about something entirely different. >It feels to me like there's this emerging zeitgeist of "commercial entities are above real criticism". While the zeitgeist seems real, it should raise questions when examples like this are misinformation

by JackFr 3y ago

derbOac 3y ago

But the question is confusion over product in the same product area. It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an actual Jack Daniels product. Also, unanimity per se doesn't necessarily mean the court is on the right side of things: I'm not sure that positions on, say, abortion necessarily translates into trademark positions. One nuance in this that seems to be lost though if I'm recalling the case correctly is that this isn't deciding the case, it's just saying it can't automatically be dismissed pre trial. So maybe that's where the unanimity comes into play. Still, between this and the Worhol case I'm concerned. Overall this doesn't seem like a good path to be going down in my personal opinion. To me a dog toy that's clearly a parody should be protected speech, probably more clearly than other things. It feels to me like there's this emerging zeitgeist of "commercial entities are above real criticism because they might be financially injured" which is absurd, and more than an individual would enjoy in terms of protection. Let's say you made a Trump brand dog toy? Would it be reasonable to say that is not protected speech because it infringes on his trademark?

s1artibartfast 3y ago
>It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an actual Jack Daniels product The Supreme Court did not rule on this question. In fact it seems like they agree with you. The decision is about something entirely different. >It feels to me like there's this emerging zeitgeist of "commercial entities are above real criticism". While the zeitgeist seems real, it should raise questions when examples like this are misinformation