Jack Daniel’s harmed, but not infringed, by chewy dog toy

The latest ruling in ‘Bad Spaniels’ finds the whiskey brand’s marks were diluted—but not infringed by a dog toy parody, explain Brian Brokate and Jacqueline Alcantara of Gibney, Anthony & Flaherty.

Already registered?

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk

More on this story

Trademarks

Dogfight: SCOTUS favours big brands in JD’s First Amendment clash

9 June 2023 The Bad Spaniels case pitted the might of America Inc against a core principle of the US Constitution. Now that the country’s highest court has weighed in, what does this mean for brands?

Trademarks

SCOTUS picks at bones of Jack Daniel’s dog toy dispute

24 March 2023 Justices concerned that trademark claims potentially impair free expression | Marked reluctance to discard Rogers test | VIP Products and free speech advocates favour Rogers over likelihood-of-confusion analysis.

Barnes & Thornburg strengthens entertainment law practice with new hire

Orange legal counsel: ‘IP must prove its worth’

EIP expands US patent team with new partner hires

Paul Hastings hires ‘exceptional’ AI expert to launch new tech practice

Seven takeaways from the WIPO-Singapore ASEAN Mediation Programme

Military contractor’s use of competitor’s software code deemed ‘fair use’

Make a difference: Cast your vote in WIPR’s Diversity & Inclusion Awards 2025

InterDigital targets Disney in global courts over streaming tech

Jack Daniel’s harmed, but not infringed, by chewy dog toy

More on this story

Editor's picks

Editor's picks

More articles