3 ms·

> Trademark is suppose to be about customer confusion, no one is confused here. If you read the article carefully, SCOTUS agrees. What the toy maker was tryin

by gwd 3y ago

> Trademark is suppose to be about customer confusion, no one is confused here. If you read the article carefully, SCOTUS agrees. What the toy maker was trying to do was use a "shortcut" called the "Rogers test"; all that SCOTUS said was that the "Rogers test" shortcut wasn't applicable in this case. That means it goes back to normal trademark "customer confusion", which SCOTUS seems to think will go in favor of the toymaker; from the article (emphasis mine): > Elizabeth Brannen, a partner at Stris & Maher, said Jack Daniel's victory "could turn out to be pyrrhic." The whiskey maker will still have to prove VIP's toys are likely to confuse potential customers into thinking it was affiliated with them in order to win its infringement case. > "The likelihood of confusion analysis will still take the challenged product's funny message into account," Brannen said. She noted that the high court said consumers are "not so likely to think that the maker of a mocked product is itself doing the mocking."

MisterBastahrd 3y ago
A lot of people who don't follow the courts make the mistake that whatever ruling the USSC makes must necessarily be the final one on the entire case, without considering that the USSC often rules on specific issues related to the case.
- bdowling 3y ago
  Exactly. Many cases before the Supreme Court are about whether a type of case should be in court at all or should get to be heard by a jury. The decisions do not dictate the outcome, but have to do with whether the lower court made a mistake in dismissing a case early. Here, the court is saying that Jack Daniels gets to make its case to a jury.
- qingcharles 3y ago
  It's hard for the public to understand most court rulings, especially when the headlines are always so alarmist and yet the rulings, especially SCOTUS rulings, are usually so incredibly narrow and on some tiny statutory interpretation. This case is a classic "nothing to see here" moment being paraded as if the sky is falling. I get it though, I sometimes have to read a ruling five times just to figure out what the hell has been decided.
  - jfengel 3y ago
    The vast majority of SCOTUS rulings are narrow and largely irrelevant. They also usually attract little attention. The cases where SCOTUS attracts the most attention are the ones where fairly broad decisions are made, or at least hinted at. The public is usually wrong in their understanding of it -- as non-experts practically always are. Nonetheless, SCOTUS does make, several times a year, decisions that have a direct bearing on people's lives. They may not understand the nuances of the decision but they know when their rights have expanded or collapsed. Such decisions are usually issued at the end of June. Expect there to be several significant and not-at-all-narrow decisions very soon.
    - qingcharles 3y ago
      I live for all the 4th Amendment decisions. It's been an interesting decade for those with the changes in technology. I'd still love SCOTUS to rule that it's a 4th Amend. violation to access my stored email without a warrant. Still only an appellate decision on the topic from the 6th Cir.
- cvoss 3y ago
  A similar mistake I see people make is hearing the headline, "SCOTUS sides with party A over party B", and conclude the Court generally supports and agrees with what A did and maybe even believes A acted morally rightly. That's not SCOTUS's job and that's not what they do (usually). It doesn't carry the voice of the people and has no mandate to do what the people want. Its job is to decide whether our system of laws as constructed by Congress (which is the voice of the people) and as bounded by the Constitution ultimately allows A or B to prevail. In no way should a ruling in favor of A be construed as an endorsement of A's action. See Antonin Scalia's strongly worded thoughts about the Texas v Johnson flag-burning case, in which he voted contrary to his personal convictions about the morality of Johnson's actions. Because, ultimately, he knew his vote was not a moral judgment but a legal one.
SllX 3y ago
Just to back this up, here is the SCOTUSblog page for this case which does a much better job of summarizing the actions in this case than the Reuters article: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-2/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-pro... For those following along at home, when a case is vacated and remanded per the Judgment, what happens from there in a particular case is for the lower courts—SCOTUS opinion in-hand—to decide, if the parties choose not to settle anyway. EDIT: Also, just as a background again for those following along at home, here is an explanation of the Rogers Test: https://moellerip.com/the-moeller-blog/the-rogers-test-free-speech-v-trademark-protection/ https://moellerip.com/the-moeller-blog/the-rogers-test-free-... > Thus was born the Rogers Test, which may only be applied to non-commercial marks, which determines that the title of an artistic work is protected under free speech from the Lanham Act when a) the title of the work has some artistic relevance to the underlying work and b) that the title is not explicitly misleading as to the source of the content of the work.

by gwd 3y ago

MisterBastahrd 3y ago

A lot of people who don't follow the courts make the mistake that whatever ruling the USSC makes must necessarily be the final one on the entire case, without considering that the USSC often rules on specific issues related to the case.

bdowling 3y ago
Exactly. Many cases before the Supreme Court are about whether a type of case should be in court at all or should get to be heard by a jury. The decisions do not dictate the outcome, but have to do with whether the lower court made a mistake in dismissing a case early. Here, the court is saying that Jack Daniels gets to make its case to a jury.
qingcharles 3y ago
It's hard for the public to understand most court rulings, especially when the headlines are always so alarmist and yet the rulings, especially SCOTUS rulings, are usually so incredibly narrow and on some tiny statutory interpretation. This case is a classic "nothing to see here" moment being paraded as if the sky is falling. I get it though, I sometimes have to read a ruling five times just to figure out what the hell has been decided.
- jfengel 3y ago
  The vast majority of SCOTUS rulings are narrow and largely irrelevant. They also usually attract little attention. The cases where SCOTUS attracts the most attention are the ones where fairly broad decisions are made, or at least hinted at. The public is usually wrong in their understanding of it -- as non-experts practically always are. Nonetheless, SCOTUS does make, several times a year, decisions that have a direct bearing on people's lives. They may not understand the nuances of the decision but they know when their rights have expanded or collapsed. Such decisions are usually issued at the end of June. Expect there to be several significant and not-at-all-narrow decisions very soon.
  - qingcharles 3y ago
    I live for all the 4th Amendment decisions. It's been an interesting decade for those with the changes in technology. I'd still love SCOTUS to rule that it's a 4th Amend. violation to access my stored email without a warrant. Still only an appellate decision on the topic from the 6th Cir.
cvoss 3y ago
A similar mistake I see people make is hearing the headline, "SCOTUS sides with party A over party B", and conclude the Court generally supports and agrees with what A did and maybe even believes A acted morally rightly. That's not SCOTUS's job and that's not what they do (usually). It doesn't carry the voice of the people and has no mandate to do what the people want. Its job is to decide whether our system of laws as constructed by Congress (which is the voice of the people) and as bounded by the Constitution ultimately allows A or B to prevail. In no way should a ruling in favor of A be construed as an endorsement of A's action. See Antonin Scalia's strongly worded thoughts about the Texas v Johnson flag-burning case, in which he voted contrary to his personal convictions about the morality of Johnson's actions. Because, ultimately, he knew his vote was not a moral judgment but a legal one.

SllX 3y ago

Just to back this up, here is the SCOTUSblog page for this case which does a much better job of summarizing the actions in this case than the Reuters article: https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-2/ https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-pro... For those following along at home, when a case is vacated and remanded per the Judgment, what happens from there in a particular case is for the lower courts—SCOTUS opinion in-hand—to decide, if the parties choose not to settle anyway. EDIT: Also, just as a background again for those following along at home, here is an explanation of the Rogers Test: https://moellerip.com/the-moeller-blog/the-rogers-test-free-speech-v-trademark-protection/ https://moellerip.com/the-moeller-blog/the-rogers-test-free-... > Thus was born the Rogers Test, which may only be applied to non-commercial marks, which determines that the title of an artistic work is protected under free speech from the Lanham Act when a) the title of the work has some artistic relevance to the underlying work and b) that the title is not explicitly misleading as to the source of the content of the work.