Supreme Court Puts a Firm Limit on Using Parody in Marketing

My recent publication in the Queens Bar Bulletin, the monthly publication of the Queens County Bar Association, explores the limitations of using parody in marketing.

The Supreme Court of the United States, in its ruling in VIP Products v. Jack Daniels, firmly put a limit on how far you can go in using parody as a form of free speech when it comes to marketing and trademarking your brand. VIP Products sold chewable dog toys that were shaped like Jack Daniels bottles and had product titles and descriptions parodying Jack Daniels products such as: "Bad Spaniels” (a parody of “Jack Daniels”), “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet” (a parody of “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey”), and “43% poo by vol.” (a parody of “40% alc. by vol.”).

Here are the main takeaways from this Supreme Court ruling:

1️⃣ The Court’s ruling should be a warning for any manufacturer that incorporates someone else’s trademark into their own marketing.

2️⃣ Business owners must now be extra cautious that their use of someone else’s mark has purely humorous, parody, or commentary intentions.

3️⃣ If you use another brand’s trademark in your marketing as a parody but also as a way to signal to the public where your goods come from, you may be found liable of infringement and dilution.

You can read the full article here: https://qcba.org/resources/Documents/Bulletins/QBB%20Oct%202023_91-2_v6_WEB.pdf

#trademark #SCOTUS #parody #marketing #ad