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: h

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.