3 ms·
> no one is confused here Really? I believe that if you put this product in front of 100 average Walmart shoppers (mixed in with other products, some officiall
by phendrenad2 3y ago
> no one is confused here
Really? I believe that if you put this product in front of 100 average Walmart shoppers (mixed in with other products, some officially-licensed, some not), and asked them which items were "officially licensed", they would likely mostly have believed this toy to be "officially licensed".
- autoexec 3y agoI'd bet that if you asked 100 average Walmart shoppers what "officially licensed" even meant you'd get some fraction which couldn't tell you. A reasonable person however wouldn't assume it was an official Jack Daniel's product and they'd certainly have to be extremely drunk to mistake the dog toy for an actual bottle of Jack Daniel's which is the only time such a misunderstanding would cost Jack Daniel's a lost sale anyway. Even if someone, somewhere, somehow managed to assume that Jack Daniel's was the entity behind a cute dog toy it still wouldn't hurt them any. It feels like Jack Daniel's is doing far more harm to their own reputation than the dog toy ever would have. I know lawyers love insisting that companies must to defend their trademarks to the death and treat everything that could ever conceivably come close to infringing on a trademark like it were a deadly threat, and I'm sure Jack Daniel's would love to make this toy company pay them excessive licensing fees to keep the product on shelves, but this is just silly.
- phendrenad2 3y ago> only time such a misunderstanding would cost Jack Daniel's a lost sale anyway This is a strawman. Nobody is arguing that this loses Jack Daniels revenue, they're arguing that it waters down their IP and deprives them of the ability to monetize their brand image. Sheesh.