Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products LLC
Case Overview
Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products (2023) held 9-0 that the Rogers v. Grimaldi First Amendment defense, which protects expressive works from trademark infringement claims, does not apply when the defendant is using the allegedly infringing mark as a source identifier (trademark use), even if the product also has expressive or parodic qualities. The Court narrowly decided the case on the Rogers threshold issue, leaving for lower courts whether a First Amendment defense might still apply in other contexts.
The Facts
VIP Products makes a squeaky dog toy called 'Bad Spaniels' styled to look like a Jack Daniel's whiskey bottle, but replacing 'Old No. 7 Tennessee Whiskey' with 'The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.' Jack Daniel's sued for trademark infringement. VIP Products argued the toy was an expressive parody entitled to First Amendment protection under Rogers v. Grimaldi (2d Cir. 1989), which held that titles of expressive works can only be found infringing if they have no artistic relevance or explicitly mislead consumers. The Ninth Circuit accepted the Rogers defense and ruled for VIP Products.
The Application
VIP Products' use of Jack Daniel's distinctive bottle design to identify its dog toy constituted trademark use rather than artistic expression, even though the toy conveyed a parodic message. Rogers v. Grimaldi protects marks referenced in expressive works, but the doctrine does not apply when the mark itself functions as the product's source identifier in the marketplace. Because Jack Daniel's mark served as VIP's product identifier - not as artistic reference material within an expressive work - Rogers did not protect VIP, and the case proceeded under standard trademark infringement analysis. The Court remanded for analysis of whether the marks' similarity and product presentation created likelihood of consumer confusion about source or sponsorship.
The Conclusion
**The 2023 ruling resolved a circuit split over the scope of the Rogers test and significantly limits its availability as a defense.** Companies selling products that parody well-known brands cannot avoid trademark infringement claims simply by claiming expressive purpose when the infringing mark is their own brand identifier. The decision remanded for standard likelihood-of-confusion analysis.
No circuit court data for this case.
Flag an issue
This tracker is maintained by BrynoDC and is free because readers fund it. Support