iHeart’s WLW Radio recently asked John Rizvi to come on the air in Cincinnati, OH to discuss an upcoming Supreme Court case that has everyone talking. Jack Daniels has taken a dog toy company to court, claiming they make their dog toy look too much like a Jack Daniels bottle in violation of their trademark rights. The maker of the dog toy claims that it is expressive speech and is unfairly being categorized as an infringement on a parody. Essentially, it’s a joke. The reason it’s gotten all the way to the Supreme Court is that there’s a need for guidance as to where the Commerce clause stops, and the First Amendment rights start.
John Rizvi, the patent professor, explains that the Supreme Court will have to draw the line between First Amendment rights to free speech and trademark law. Essentially, it’s a balancing act that has to be done before the Court. This case is essentially a commercial product for profit and not somebody doing a free speech in the traditional sense. The constitutional right to free speech doesn’t allow someone to go into a theater and yell fire. There are restrictions on free speech, and the court will have to determine whether Trademark Rights and Lanham Act will kick in and prevent the parity of trademarks and how much.
Jack Daniels has a duty to enforce and protect their marks and trademarks, and if they don’t do that, its rights become diluted. There is also a risk to other trademark holders that could be affected if Jack Daniels wins the case. Of course, consumer confusion is one of the things that the Supreme Court judges will be more concerned about. In conclusion, it’s a strange case on all fronts, but an important case because it’s really going to determine the rights of trademark owners going forward, and how strong protection they can get and stopping parodies versus how much leeway being funny is going to allow commercial products.
✔ 700 WLW Social Media
➤ https://700wlw.iheart.com
➤ https://facebook.com/700wlw