Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use; Bloomberg Law, December 29, 2022

Dorothy Auth, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Howard Wizenfeld, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, Bloomberg Law; Here’s How the Supreme Court Could Impact Creative Trademark Use

"The upcoming term for the US Supreme Court includes an ambitious schedule of intellectual property cases, spanning patent, trademark, and copyright law...

Jack Daniel’s

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC addresses creative works in the context of trademark law, asking whether humorous use of another’s trademark is protected by the First Amendment. 

Under normal circumstances, a trademark infringement is determined based on whether the use of another’s mark is “likely to cause confusion” with that of the trademark owner.

However, when a mark is used in an artistic manner, courts instead use the Rogers test, which is intended to protect the free speech. Unlike the likelihood-of-confusion test in the Lanham Act (Trademark Act of 1946), the Rogers test allows use of another’s mark as an expressive work unless the use contains no artistic relevance or explicitly misleads about the source or content of the work.

As a result, the Rogers test narrows the scope of protection for the mark. Here, VIP created a squeaky toy named “Bad Spaniels,” closely resembling Jack Daniel’s famous whiskey bottle and label.

While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy humorously proclaims, “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet” which is “43% Poo by Vol” and “100% Smelly.” 

Should the court affirm the squeaky toy is an expressive work, for being humorous, under the Rogers test, or should a traditional Lanham Act analysis be applied? The court’s answer may have significant implications for companies that sell items with a humorous message based on another’s trademark."

Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory; The Washington Post, August 1, 2018

Antonia Farzan, The Washington Post; Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory

"In June 2015, Gordon filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the greeting card company, saying that the cards were expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Gordon appealed.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing his lawsuit to continue.

In an opinion published Monday, the three-judge panel said that Gordon’s lawsuit against Drape Creative, Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, Inc. presents a question that should be tried before a jury: Did the greeting cards add any artistic value that would be protected by the First Amendment, or did they simply appropriate the goodwill associated with Gordon’s trademark?"