Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels; NPR, March 22, 2023

Nina Totenberg, NPR ; Jack Daniel's tells Supreme Court its brand is harmed by dog toy Bad Spaniels

"This case involves the federal trademark statutes and whether and when parody is protected speech. The whiskey company claims that the imitation Bad Spaniels bottle has appropriated the iconic Jack Daniel's design for just one purpose, to sell a chewy dog toy. And by doing that, the company claims, Jack's property rights have been infringed, even if the chewy dog toy is expressive."

May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.; The New York Times, December 5, 2022

  Adam Liptak, The New York Times; May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

"The justices agreed last month to decide the fate of the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy, which looks a lot like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s but with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”

The jokes are scatological. The words “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are replaced on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 percent alcohol by volume, Bad Spaniels’s is said to be “43 percent poo.”

A tag attached to the toy says it is “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

Trademark cases generally turn on whether the public is likely to be confused about a product’s source. In the Bad Spaniels case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said the First Amendment requires a more demanding test when the challenged product is expressing an idea or point of view."

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?"

Nearly Every English Word Is Trademarked; How Stuff Works, February 26, 2018

John Perritano, How Stuff Works; Nearly Every English Word Is Trademarked

"The two professors, Barton Beebe and Jeanne C. Fromer, looked at the 6.7 million trademark applications filed at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office between 2003 and 2016. They then studied a database of the 100,000 most frequently used words in American English — the Corpus of Contemporary American English. They also reviewed a U.S. Census list of the 151,672 most frequently occurring surnames in the United States.

What they found will knock your socks off, which, by the way is also trademarked. "The data present compelling evidence of substantial word-mark depletion," they write in the Feb. 9, 2018 issue of the Harvard Law Review, "particularly with respect to the sets of potential marks that businesses prefer most: standard English words, short neologisms that are pronounceable by English speakers and common American surnames."...

The result of so many trademarks is that new businesses have to strain their noggins (yes, variations of "noggin" are already taken) to come up with monikers that aren't already claimed, or resort to what's called a "parallel registration." That's when two companies use the exact same name as long as it won't confuse consumers (for example, Delta Faucets and Delta Airlines)."

Super Bowl Legal Blitz: Inside The NFL's Legendary Trademark Defense; Forbes, January 30, 2018

Michelle Fabio, Forbes; Super Bowl Legal Blitz: Inside The NFL's Legendary Trademark Defense

"A trademark is a "word, name, symbol, device, or any combination, used or intended to be used to identify and distinguish the goods/services of one seller or provider from those of others, and to indicate the source of the goods/services." Generally, courts use a "likelihood of confusion" test to determine whether trademark infringement has occurred, i.e., whether a consumer is likely to be confused as to the source of the goods or services by the allegedly infringing usage.

Legally speaking, defending a mark is an important aspect of being a trademark owner. Besides the potential weakening and loss of distinctiveness ("dilution" in trademark speak), the failure to enforce a trademark could even lead to the forfeiture of some of the available remedies for infringement.

For this reason, multimillion-dollar companies hire professional watch services to monitor trademark use and possible infringement. And with the NFL, nothing seems to escape its notice—or legal wrath—which goes far beyond just counterfeiters.

In 2007, the NFL sent a warning letter to an Indianapolis church that had advertised a “Super Bowl” party and planned to charge admission for a viewing on a screen larger than 55-inches. The league has since loosened its policies regarding gatherings—the word “Super Bowl” and team names can be used—but still no admission fees are allowed. For churches, the event must be held in the usual place of worship as opposed to a rented space.

Notably, the logos of the NFL, the Super Bowl and the participating teams may not be used, which has led to rather hilarious if legally sound results. Take, for example, this promotional image by a Bethlehem, Pennsylvania arts campus, which features clip art, "Birds" and "Big Game," instead of official NFL logos, "Philadelphia Eagles" and "Super Bowl"..."

What the NHL’s trademark fiasco can teach you about brand preparedness; Financial Post, 1/12/17

Chad Finkelstein, Financial Post; What the NHL’s trademark fiasco can teach you about brand preparedness:

"Whether the USPTO’s position will hold up in the United States (and what the fate of the Canadian trademarks applications are) remains to be seen, but the situation should be viewed by trademark owners and prospective trademark owners as a warning about not taking proactive steps to get trademarks registered. The longer an unregistered trademark is in use, the more it will cost to go through a rebranding."

China fines firms for using BMW-like trademark: media; Reuters, 12/19/16

Reporting by Engen Tham; Editing by Stephen Coates, Reuters; China fines firms for using BMW-like trademark: media:

"A court in Shanghai ordered two Chinese firms and the founder of one of them to pay automaker BMW (BMWG.DE) 3 million yuan ($431,617.41) for registering trademarks similar to that of the German firm, the Shanghai Daily reported on Tuesday.

The ruling is the latest win for a large foreign firm in China, a sign that courts are taking trademark infringement more seriously in a country dogged with fakes of everything from clothing brands to entire shops."

Oprah Winfrey beats 'Own Your Power' trademark appeal; Reuters, 9/16/16

Jonathan Stempel, Reuters; Oprah Winfrey beats 'Own Your Power' trademark appeal:

"Oprah Winfrey, the media mogul and former talk show host, on Friday defeated an appeal in a trademark lawsuit over her use of the phrase "Own Your Power" in her namesake magazine and on television, websites and social media.

The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Manhattan said the plaintiff, Simone Kelly-Brown, a motivational speaker and business coach, and her company, Own Your Power Communications Inc, did not show that Winfrey's use of "Own Your Power" confused people.

The court also said the phrase "Own Your Power" was "not distinctive" and thus lacked independent trademark protection.

Kelly-Brown registered a "design mark" for "own your power" in a stylized light-blue script with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in May 2008."

Hari Puttar and the case of the film that sounded too familiar - Scotland on Sunday, 9/14/08

Hari Puttar and the case of the film that sounded too familiar:
"The release of Hari Puttar, a children's Bollywood film, has been postponed after Warner Bros complained its name was too similar to Harry Potter.
The Hollywood company filed a lawsuit against Bollywood film-makers Mirchi Movies because the name of the film was "confusing" and could infringe their copyright...
The lawsuit is the latest in a string of legal battles to protect the intellectual property rights of Scottish author JK Rowling's hugely successful creation."
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/entertainment/Hari-Puttar-and-the-case.4489918.jp