In my last blog post (“MSCHF Testing the Limits of Free Speech“) I wrote about the Wavy Baby Shoes case in the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Now, in a different case raising similar issues, the United States Supreme Court will have an opportunity to resolve a circuit split on the parody goods question. On Monday, the Court granted certiorari in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products.
The “Bad Spaniels” Dog Toy
Jack Daniel’s Products claims trademark rights, including trade dress, in the distinctive shape and label of its whiskey product. VIP Products has made a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels.” It has a very similar shape and label. Jack Daniel’s sued VIP, asserting trademark infringement and dilution claims.
The district court ruled in favor of Jack Daniel’s, finding that the dog toy was likely to confuse consumers about the source of the product and tarnish the Jack Daniel’s brand. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals however, reversed. The dog toys, the Court ruled, are parody goods protected as expression by the First Amendment.
The Second, Seventh and Eighth Circuit Courts of Appeals have taken different approaches regarding the scope of First Amendment protection for parody goods. The Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the split in the circuits.
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act
The Trademark Dilution Revision Act expressly excludes parody from dilution liability. It applies, however, only when the challenged use is “other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services.” 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). Thus, the Act covers parody advertisements or other parodic references to a product in a magazine, movie or other traditional form of artistic or literary expression, but it does not reach situations where a parody mark is used as a designation of source.
Rogers v. Grimaldi
As discussed in MSCHF Testing the Limits of Free Speech, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals ruled, in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), that the use of a trademark in the title of a film or other artistic work is not actionable unless “the title has no artistic relevance to the underlying work whatsoever, or, if it has some artistic relevance, unless the title explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Id. at 999.
In the Jack Daniel’s case, the district court held that the rule articulated in Rogers is limited to the use of a trademark in the title of a film or other artistic work. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals did not agree that the rule is so limited.
The case squarely raises the question whether and to what extent the First Amendment insulates makers and sellers of parody goods from trademark liability.
Conclusion
Many legal scholars will frame the issue as whether the Court will choose to extend Grimaldi to parody goods, on one hand, or to limit the case to its facts, on the other. Another possibility, however, is that the Court might choose to disapprove Grimaldi altogether.
Update: Read about the Supreme Court’s decisions on trademark speech rights in this and other cases.
Visit my extensive Trademark FAQs page.
About the Author: Written by Thomas James, a licensed attorney with a practice focused on trademark and copyright protection for creators, entrepreneurs, and nonprofits. He is an accomplished author of legal texts and is admitted to practice before the Bar of the United States Supreme Court.
Disclaimer: The information in this blog post is for general informational and entertainment purposes only and does not constitute legal advice or establish an attorney-client relationship. While I am an attorney, I am not your attorney. If you need legal advice, you should retain or consult with an attorney.
2 thoughts on “Court agrees to hear parody goods case”