Supreme Court Ruling Sets Precedent for Parody Products in Trademark Disputes

In a landmark decision on June 12, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the "Bad Spaniels" dog toys, resembling Jack Daniel's whiskey bottles, are not protected by the Constitution from the liquor maker's trademark lawsuit.

This judgment has significant implications for the application of constitutional free speech rights to trademark law and could redefine how parody products are treated in the legal landscape.

Become a Subscriber

Please purchase a subscription to continue reading this article.

Subscribe Now

The case, which had been closely watched by legal experts, centered on VIP Products' argument that their poop-themed dog toys were a form of First Amendment-protected commentary on the alcohol industry's advertising practices and the playful relationship between pet owners and their dogs.

However, in a unanimous 9-0 decision, the justices overturned a U.S. appellate court ruling and established a higher threshold for parodies to survive trademark disputes. The Court declared that the Rogers test, a legal framework often used to determine whether a parody product infringes on a trademark, did not apply to VIP's products.

Justice Elena Kagan clarified that the Rogers test is not suitable when the accused infringer uses a trademark to identify the source of its own goods, effectively employing the trademark as a trademark.

Legal experts have characterized the ruling as a victory for both artists and brands. It clarifies that the Rogers test does not apply when a brand is used as a traditional trademark to indicate the origin of products without permission.

However, the Court did not provide clear guidance on how to distinguish between trademark usage and non-trademark use, leaving some ambiguity for future cases. The decision suggests that parody items accused of trademark infringement may struggle to utilize the Rogers test if they are intended as commercial products, even if they incorporate expressive elements beyond mere commerce.

Consequently, parody companies may consider entering licensing agreements or exploring more innovative ways to differentiate themselves from the brands they reference.

Notably, the ruling also upholds the application of the First Amendment to parody products. Northeastern University law professor Alexandra Roberts highlighted that a t-shirt bearing the slogan "Chick-Fil-Hate" could be protected under the First Amendment as it criticizes Chick-fil-A without explicitly using its trademark.

However, the use of the trademark itself could impact the analysis, emphasizing the nuanced nature of these cases.

While the judgment may seem like a victory for Jack Daniel, there are potential challenges ahead for the whiskey company. To prevail in their infringement case, they must demonstrate that consumers would be misled into believing that VIP's toys are associated with their brand. The likelihood of confusion analysis will still consider the humorous message conveyed by the challenged product.

As corporations become more cautious about parodying other brands, the legal landscape is likely to see increased scrutiny and creative approaches from parody companies seeking to exercise their free speech rights while avoiding trademark infringement.