Supreme court sides with Jack Daniel’s against poop

The U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision Thursday, sided with Tennessee whiskey company Jack Daniel's in a trademark dispute sparked by a poop-themed dog toy, fashioned to look like its iconic bottle.

The ruling reveres a lower court's conclusion that VIP Products’ parody dog toy is covered by the First Amendment's free speech protections, ultimately voiding Jack Daniel's claims of trademark infringement.

"This case is about dog toys and whiskey, two items seldom appearing in the same sentence," Justice Elena Kagan wrote for the court.

The dog toy at the center of the case, shaped like a bottle of booze with a guilty-looking pup at the center of the label, replaces the iconic "Jack Daniel's" typography with the phrase "Bad Spaniels." And instead of promising 40% alcohol by volume, it promises "43% poo by volume, 100% smelly."

The words "Old No. 7 brand" and "Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey," have also been switched out for "The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet."

A bottle of Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey is displayed next to a Bad Spaniels dog toy in Arlington, Va., Nov. 20, 2022. (Jessica Gresko/AP)

The rubber squeaker, which retails for around $20, is part of a line of dog toys called Silly Squeakers. Its packaging, in small font, notes: "This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery."

The disclaimer however was not enough to appease the liquor company. It argued that the toy misleads customers, profits "from Jack Daniel's hard-earned goodwill" and associates its "whiskey with excrement."

At the heart of the case is the Lanham Act, which prohibits using a trademark in a way "likely to cause confusion ... as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of ... goods." Kagan said the lower court erred when it concluded the toy was a humorous and "expressive work," and should therefore be examined under a different lens.

She added that "the only question in this case going forward is whether the Bad Spaniels marks are likely to cause confusion."

The court on Thursday did not decide whether the toy's maker violated trademark law but instead allowed the liquor maker to revive its lawsuit.

With News Wire Services