Submitted by WREGnewschannel3 t3_z0eowe in nottheonion
xantxant t1_ix5u3rw wrote
- It's parody.
- The products are not confusingly-similar; they are not even the same product. One is alcohol, the other is a dog toy.
There is no trademark case here. They're out of their gourds. That doesn't mean this braindead court won't hear it, though.
> “To be sure, everyone likes a good joke. But VIP’s profit-motivated ‘joke’ confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill,” she wrote for the Louisville, Kentucky-based Brown-Forman Corp., Jack Daniel’s parent company.
No it doesn't. Shut up.
themehboat t1_ix63602 wrote
Right? No one is buying this dog toy and then getting upset that they can’t drink it. Or if they are, they’ve had enough to drink.
GabeTheJerk t1_ix6otu5 wrote
Or shouldn't be allowed to drink, vote or own a gun
tr00p3r t1_ix78bao wrote
No but they are buying it because it is related to Jack Daniels. If they want to make a toy alcohol bottle just use something completely made up... Oh wait. That's not funny so it won't sell.
hiimsubclavian t1_ix7n5fj wrote
Yes, you've just described the definition of parody. Which happens to be protected by the first amendment.
tr00p3r t1_ix7p8z5 wrote
It's worth going to court. See examples at the bottom of this page: https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody#:~:text=A%20parody%20is%20fair%20use,which%20one%20work%20imitates%20another.
The toy doesn't seem to make fun or comment on the jack Daniels brand, it's just a copy with changes.
EagleFalconn t1_ix6hpnn wrote
>Takes advantage of Jack Daniel's hard-earned goodwill
Which in human speak means, "They're only making fun of us because we're popular!"
No shit, sherlock. Otherwise it wouldn't be effective parody.
pregnantseahorsedad t1_ix6vskf wrote
This one got me:
"And she said it has “broad and dangerous consequences,” pointing to
children who were hospitalized after eating marijuana-infused products
that mimicked candy packaging."
You really think that the dog is gonna accidentally get drunk off your whiskey?
nj0tr t1_ix75fng wrote
> the dog is gonna accidentally get drunk off your whiskey?
no, but vet bills (and 'emotional trauma') for someone's beloved dog accidentally biting into real JD bottle can well be a basis for a civil claim
DoctorGreyscale t1_ix7iqoh wrote
What vet bills? Are you trying to imply that a dog would break its teeth or shatter the bottle? If a dog bit into a glass bottle they'd definitely be able to tell the difference.
IndianKiwi t1_ixafpec wrote
Better take away the gun shaped stuffy also. Just incase they go after a real gun
pregnantseahorsedad t1_ixaqhnj wrote
Dogs wouldn't confuse the scent of the plastic with the scent of the glass/paper. Plastic is really stinky to the dogs... Especially if they like the toy, it'll probably smell like cortisol from their saliva the last time they played with it.
DrDroid t1_ix9o6m1 wrote
That would be literally the dumbest dog in history if it did that.
theluckyone17 t1_ix66jrj wrote
I'm pretty sure they're saying we general consumers are likely to confuse their liquor product with a dog toy.
I'm not saying they're right, and I'm not saying they're wrong... But if they're afraid I'm going to confuse the two, I don't really want to be drinking their product.
EuronXena t1_ix6k158 wrote
The piggybacking off JD’s goodwill is obvious though. It’s definitely an interesting case but JD’s attorney is not producing good arguments with the weed gummy BS.
Laserspeeddemon t1_ix89esq wrote
No Jack Daniel's is in the right. I went to drink my whiskey and nearly choked on a dog toy. I was so confused.
throwawaydontask24 t1_ix7ecew wrote
If someone's not capable of recognizing the difference between a piece of rubber that's labelled a chew toy, they shouldn't be buying alcohol lmao
VitaminPb t1_ix6806k wrote
The argument is “We have a product consumers like. This product is playing off our product popularity to make sales and profit without being licensed.” Which is a valid claim.
Could I make a sell Tesla plushies or toys and call them “Telsa”?
0110010001100010 t1_ix6h9vf wrote
>Could I make a sell Tesla plushies or toys and call them “Telsa”?
No, but that's not the claim here. The product isn't called "Jack Daniel's" nor does it have any of the same language on the "bottle."
The toy is "Bad Spaniels"
Furthermore:
>The toy that has Jack Daniel’s so doggone mad mimics the square shape of its whisky bottle as well as its black-and-white label and amber-colored liquor while adding what it calls “poop humor.” While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the parody proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of the original’s note that it is 40% alcohol by volume, the parody says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”
So you comparison is totally wrong.
VitaminPb t1_ix6zglv wrote
You misread what the name for the supposed toys was. I described something that looked like another thing with a different name.
DoctorGreyscale t1_ix7iwza wrote
"Telsa" isn't a parody. It's just a typo.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments