Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 598 U.S. 105 (2023)

“Parody does not automatically protect against dilution of a famous mark.”

Short Description:

The Supreme Court considered whether parody or humorous use of a famous trademark could serve as a defense against claims of trademark dilution under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act. The Court clarified that parody alone is not an automatic exemption if the use diminishes the distinctiveness or harms the reputation of the famous mark.

Facts:

⦁ VIP Products created a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels”, designed to resemble Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottles in shape, logo style, and coloring.

⦁ Jack Daniel’s Properties sued for trademark dilution and false association, claiming the toy could tarnish or blur the famous Jack Daniel’s mark.

⦁ VIP argued that the toy was a parody, protected under the First Amendment and fair use doctrines.

⦁ Lower courts had divided opinions, with some recognizing parody as a potential defense.

Findings / Reasoning:

⦁ The Supreme Court held that while parody may be a factor in analyzing fair use, it cannot automatically exempt a party from liability for dilution.

⦁ Famous marks enjoy stronger protection under the Federal Trademark Dilution Act, and any use that lessens distinctiveness or harms reputation can constitute dilution.

⦁ The Court emphasized balancing free expression against the rights of famous mark owners.

Suggestions / Implications:

⦁ Parody creators should evaluate the risk of dilution claims when using famous marks.

⦁ Trademark owners of well-known marks can enforce dilution protection even against humorous or satirical uses.

⦁ This case highlights the limits of parody as a safe harbor under trademark law.

Judgment & Date:

⦁ Judgment: In favor of Jack Daniel’s; parody does not automatically shield against dilution.

⦁ Date: May 22, 2023.