Jack Daniel’s Wants To Put Down Dog Toy That Looks Like Its Bottles
Images 169342895 © Dmitriy Melnikov | Dreamstime.com and VIP Products
Jack Daniel’s has chased the tail of a pet toy retailer all the way to the US Supreme Court, which has agreed to listen to its appeal over a disputed chew toy.
In 2020, the US Court of Appeals took the side of VIP Products, which was accused of violating Jack Daniel’s trademark with a lookalike ‘Bad Spaniel’s’ design parodying the classic Jack Daniel’s bottle.
VIP Products’ chew toy replaces the distillery’s “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” brandings with the words “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” It also swapped out Jack Daniel’s 40% alcohol label with “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”
Images via VIP Products
The same dog toy company was previously sued by Anheuser-Busch for a ‘ButtWiper’ toy in 2008, and lost, NBC News reports.
Jack Daniel’s has since contested the ruling, as it will bottle up its disdain no longer.
In response, VIP Products says: “It is ironic that America’s leading distiller of whiskey both lacks a sense of humor and does not recognize when it—and everyone else—has had enough.” The pet toy brand argues that there was no competition in the first place as it does not sell whiskey.
“[VIP] merely mimicked enough of the iconic bottle that people would get the joke,” the pet toy retailer adds, elaborating that its products are protected under the First Amendment.
Backing Jack Daniel’s appeal, companies including Campbell Soup Co, Levi Strauss & Co, and Patagonia Inc have filed motions to ask the Supreme Court to clarify trademark laws and what falls under the category of parodies.
The high court is expected to hear Jack Daniel’s arguments in early 2023.
“We are pleased that the Supreme Court has decided to hear this case,” says Courtney Armour, Chief Legal Officer of the Distilled Spirits Council, the nation’s trade association representing producers and marketers of distilled spirits. “The alcohol beverage industry has long worked to ensure that our products are advertised in a responsible manner and trademark infringers can severely jeopardize these efforts.”
[via Boing Boing and NBC News, images via various sources]
