| A bit of an oversimplification and slightly wrong, but the problem is essentially that it is a Bad Spaniels brand dog toy, parodying the sound-a-like Jack Daniels brand whiskey. There exists the Rogers Test in trademark law that says that, for an /artistic work/, all a defendant has to do is show that a) the trademark is relevant to the artistic work, and b) the title is not explicitly misleading (to make the audience think the work is created/supported by the trademark holder). The Rogers Test, reserved for artistic work, is gentler than normal trademark defense. Bad Spaniels chew toy passed this test easily. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that, because the chew toy is released by the Bad Spaniels /brand/, the Rogers /artistic work/ analysis is not appropriate. Instead, it should be litigated as a brand vs. brand trademark dispute. In a brand vs. brand dispute, Jack Daniels will have to instead prove that the Bad Spaniels brand is likely to cause confusion with regards to Jack Daniels brand's involvement in the product. This is a higher bar to clear than Rogers test, because the trademark doesn't have to be explicitly confusing; it just needs to be likely. I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I don't think Jack Daniels will prevail even with the stricter standard. (IMO,) this ruling is barely going to matter in the long run: if the Bad Spaniels chew bottle was sold by Bob's Novelties and did not included the word "brand" after "Bad Spaniels", then the Rogers test would still apply. |