Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

seantabasco t1_ix57bop wrote

The part that confuses me about lawsuits like this is isn’t that dog toy essentially free advertising for Jack Daniel’s? Why sue them?

35

_tnr t1_ix59b0j wrote

Because they aren't making money off of them

43

Van_GOOOOOUGH t1_ix5b2x1 wrote

But free advertisement does indeed increase revenue.

14

dbx999 t1_ix5vrnn wrote

You don’t want to sacrifice the ownership interests of your trademark for the sake of some short lived added public exposure of that trademark done by a 3rd party without license to do so. It means the trademark owner loses control over the way the mark is used and how it’s used. It also erodes the overall defensibility of the trademark in subsequent infringements by unlicensed parties establishing a precedent for permissive use by failure to defend your trademark.

5

Somepotato t1_ix776uv wrote

Trademarks are categorized. I seriously doubt JD has a trademarked dog toy.

2

jnmjnmjnm t1_ix7hx15 wrote

Maybe a more general “novelty items”.

1

Kelend t1_ix6wm40 wrote

>But free advertisement does indeed increase revenue.

That's what people say to free lancers /contractors to get them to do free work.

But lets say you are 100% right.

In that case you go to the copyright / trademark holders and you make your case, get a license to use said trademark / copyrights.

2

Hunnyhelp t1_ix5b7fi wrote

Jack Daniel’s isn’t getting advertising from the dog toy. No one is familiar with Bad Spaniels but not Jack Daniel’s. The company is profiting off of Jack Daniel’s brand and the company is upset it might dilute the quality of their brand

31

flippythemaster t1_ix5gg0w wrote

Isn't this a pretty clear cut case of parody? Seems to me like it would be allowed under fair use policy

27

Nick433333 t1_ix6cngd wrote

Fair use refers to copyright, not trademark. They are distinct things.

3

imitation_crab_meat t1_ix5cs1t wrote

> No one is familiar with Bad Spaniels but not Jack Daniel’s.

Advertising isn't just to expose new people to things, it's also to bring those things to the forefront in peoples' minds. If they only cared about people unfamiliar with products why would Coca Cola ever advertise again?

12

Hunnyhelp t1_ix5d3ni wrote

The key part of soft advertising is control over brand image. Here they have none whatsoever. Jack Daniel’s wants to control, their brand association as much as possible. They might not want their brand associated (however unconsciously) with a to-be torn up piece of plastic.

15

imitation_crab_meat t1_ix5gqip wrote

Unfortunately for them parody is considered fair use under copyright law and they're unlikely to win against what's very clearly a parody product.

6

TBoneBaggetteBaggins t1_ix5oj26 wrote

How about under trademark law?

1

imitation_crab_meat t1_ix5w8qf wrote

>Can you parody a trademark?

>To constitute trademark parody, there must be two juxtaposing messages: the use must copy enough of the mark for people to recognize the targeted brand, but differentiate it sufficiently using some articulable elements of satire, ridicule, joking or amusement so that people can tell it is not connected to the original

Also allowed, and this certainly qualifies.

7

dbx999 t1_ix5vdim wrote

Because it’s a dilution of their trademark. In trademark law, the law is very clear and states that the owner of a trademark has the legal duty to defend their trademark vigorously. To fail to do so will be interpreted as giving permission. And doing so weakens the ownership rights of the owner. Permissive use without license causes detriment to the trademark owner in subsequent infringement cases. So unless you fight hard on the first case, you may be much more vulnerable to other parties taking your trademark and using it for their own commercial purposes with a stronger defense against the original owner.

3

Moneia t1_ix5js6m wrote

If it can be shown that they're not actively defending their copyright then they can lose it.

1

ProjectRevolutionTPP t1_ix5swbn wrote

How many times is this dumb misconception going to get spread around. This only applies to trademark, not copyright.

−1

Kelend t1_ix6wqs4 wrote

While he misspoke, this is a case of trademark

1

Seagullmaster t1_ix5l8ty wrote

Other people are saying they aren’t making money off of this, but free advertising In a humerus way means they are.

No the real reason is that big companies like Jack Daniel’s have lawyers on their payroll who need to justify their existence. Plus suing the other company is also providing additional advertising for Jack Daniel’s cause it gets their name in the headlines.

0

dbx999 t1_ix5y0jl wrote

No those are not the reasons why a trademark owner defends their trademark. You don’t pay lawyers for busy work. There’s substantive legal reasons to defend a trademark- mainly because it’s their legal duty to do so according to US trademark law. I’ve enumerated the reasons in another comment.

1