#badspaniels — Public Fediverse posts

I don't know who needs to know this, but you can still buy your own #BadSpaniels toy on Amazon: https://www.amazon.com/Silly-Squeakers-Liquor-Spaniels-Squeaker/dp/B00N3X6JBU?source=ps-sl-shoppingads-lpcontext&ref_=fplfs&smid=A1PA0BHWJSTAUZ&th=1

Luke Winkie on #BadSpaniels

"[T]he powers that be at Jack Daniel’s were so upset about this horrific incursion on their trademark that they took the issue all the way to the highest authority in the legal stratosphere, bringing to mind a third-grader who can’t back down from a dare."

https://slate.com/human-interest/2023/06/jack-daniels-supreme-court-ruling-dog-toy.html

"Today’s opinion is narrow. We do not decide whether the Rogers test is ever appropriate, or how far the 'noncommercial use' exclusion goes. On infringement, we hold only that Rogers does not apply when the challenged use of a mark is as a mark. On dilution, we hold only that the noncommercial exclusion does not shield parody or other commentary when its use of a mark is similarly source identifying."

#Trademarks #LawFedi #SCOTUS #BadSpaniels

SCOTUS cites Stacey Dogan and @marklemley in #BadSpaniels: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf

SCOTUS: "We hold only that [the Rogers test] is not appropriate when the accused infringer has used a trademark to designate the source of its own goods—in other words, has used a trademark as a trademark. That kind of use falls within the heartland of trademark law, and does not receive special First Amendment protection."

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf

#Trademarks #LawFedi #SCOTUS #BadSpaniels

And yes, yes it is: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf

#Trademarks #LawFedi #SCOTUS #BadSpaniels

It's a SCOTUS opinion day.

Will today be #BadSpaniels day?

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/jack-daniels-properties-inc-v-vip-products-llc-2/

#Trademarks #LawFedi #SCOTUS

Note that we don't yet have a decision in this term's trademark/First Amendment case, #BadSpaniels

It's a decision day at SCOTUS.

Will we get #BadSpaniels? #Goldsmith (the Andy Warhol case over the Prince portraits)? #AmgenVersusSanofi?

Stay tuned.

#LawFedi

A conversation between @rtushnet and @lexlanham about #BadSpaniels? Yes, please! You, too, can sign up to attend (onsite or online) for free: https://www.eventbrite.com/e/bad-spaniels-trademark-parody-and-fair-use-doctrines-tickets-603820953727

I thought #BadSpaniels would be the more quotable argument but so far, #AmgenVersusSanofi is definitely winning. #PatentFedi

If you couldn't listen live yesterday, you can find the oral argument recording here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/audio/2022/22-148

And the transcript here: https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2022/22-148_21o3.pdf

#SCOTUS #BadSpaniels

Thurs 3/23 - Jack Daniels is not Bad Spaniels, FTC Click to Cancel, Amazon Labor and Beirut Bombing Case

In today’s episode (@gina hosting) we have Jack Daniels not wanting to be confused for Bad Spaniels, FTC arguing for “click to cancel,” Amazon labor misdeeds and a case involving the 1983 Beirut bombing.

https://www.minimumcomp.com/p/thurs-323-jack-daniels-is-not-bad

#law #amazon #badspaniels #lawfedi

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: "As Justice Sotomayor pointed out, the Polaroid factors aren't in the statute, either." #BadSpaniels

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: There's a gap between the intuitive understanding as "designation of source" and the judicial understanding. #BadSpaniels

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: By 1950, courts were treating 15 USC § 1125 as protecting unregistered trademarks. Rogers was a trademark case. #BadSpaniels

At the AUCWL #BadSpaniels panel: "It's a mischaracterization of the decison [in Rogers]. I'm sorry you repeated it."

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: Notes that "noncommercial use" and "use in commerce" are faux amis in the Lanham Act. #BadSpaniels

#CounterfeitRhetoric at AUCWL: Panelist calls a hypothetical rainbow "Absolutely" bottle a "counterfeit" (it wouldn't be). #BadSpaniels

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: "Keep my name out of your mouth is not a rule that can constitutionally apply to speakers." #BadSpaniels #FirstAmendment

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: "Materiality is the key missing factor" in contemporary trademark law. It should matter whether consumers actually *care.* #BadSpaniels

For more on this issue, see Prof. Tushnet's article: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1823396

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: "Parodies can fail and still be parodies." #BadSpaniels

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: Cohen's "Fuck the Draft" jacket was still expressive even though it functioned as a jacket. SCOTUS understood that. #BadSpaniels

.@rtushnet at AUCWL: "Trademark law has become unmoored from what consumers actually care about." That's why the lower court could find "confusion" on the facts of the #BadSpaniels case.

And we're done!

#BadSpaniels

Blatt: It is galling that the Gov't hasn't mentioned the USPTO's position, and to in fact take the opposite position.

#BadSpaniels

Blatt: What's not commercial? Tweets, TikToks, political ads.

#BadSpaniels

Blatt: "One man's tschotske is another man's paperweight."

#BadSpaniels

Blatt: Let's talk about pornography and poison.

#BadSpaniels

Okay, back to Lisa Blatt for Jack Daniels.

#BadSpaniels