Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Hunnyhelp t1_ix5b7fi wrote

Reply to comment by seantabasco in Jack Daniel’s asks Supreme Court to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite? by WREGnewschannel3

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