Posts Tagged: "Rogers v. Grimaldi"

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, a unanimous Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniel’s and sent dog toy maker VIP Products scurrying away with its tail between its legs. The decision held that VIP’s commercial use of a dog toy, designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey, complete with droll variations on Jack Daniel’s trademarks, is not entitled to First Amendment protections for artistic expression under the “Rogers test.” Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F. 2d 994, 999 (2d Cir. 1989). Instead, it is subject to the Lanham Act’s likelihood-of-confusion test to determine if consumers would be likely to confuse VIP’s dog toy with Jack Daniel’s, no matter how parodic. While the justices felt that artistic expression versus trademark use was cut and dried in this instance, that is not always the case in litigation focused on NFTs and the Metaverse.

The U.S. Supreme Court held today in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products that the Rogers test, used to “protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context,” is not relevant “when an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods.” The Court therefore vacated the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that said VIP’s dog toy mimicking a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection. Justice Kagan authored the unanimous opinion for the Court, while Justice Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, and Justice Gorsuch, joined by Justices Thomas and Barrett, each filed concurring opinions.

At today’s hearing in Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products, the U.S. Supreme Court Justices suggested to both sides that there might be an easier way out on the facts of this particular case than either party is proposing, but weighed the need to overturn the Second Circuit’s test in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989), which some of the Justices characterized as injecting unnecessary confusion. Though the Court seemed equally concerned about retaining a way for defendants making clearly parodic use of a mark to get out of litigation quickly, which Rogers is intended to do, they questioned both sides about why in this case they couldn’t either find for Jack Daniel’s by just saying that VIP is clearly using a source identifier on a commercial product, or remand to the district court to say they failed to properly weigh the parody or proximity factors of the product, for instance. Overall, the Justices seemed skeptical that the product in question represents a non-commercial use.

Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. filed its reply brief with the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday, March 10, in a major trademark case set to be argued on March 22. The brief contends that the country’s most popular brands are at risk of losing their brand identity if the Court affirms the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s view that a poop-themed dog toy mimicking Jack Daniel’s Whiskey bottle is an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection. In November 2022, the Supreme Court granted Jack Daniel’s petition for a writ of certiorari, which seeks to clarify whether the First Amendment protects VIP Products, LLC’s humorous use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks for commercial purposes against claims of infringement and dilution.

Luxury fashion brand Hermès won their trademark lawsuit against Mason Rothschild, the creator of the non-fungible tokens (NFT) MetaBirkins, on Wednesday. The trial was the first legal case that tested the bounds of artistic expression in NFTs against the country’s intellectual property laws. A nine-member New York jury ordered Rothschild to pay Hermès $110,000 for infringing on the luxury brand’s trademark, and $23,000 for cybersquatting. The jury ruled that Rothschild had to pay the cybersquatting damages because he used a domain name confusingly similar to that of Hermès.

Last November, the U.S. Supreme Court granted a petition for writ of certiorari filed by famed whiskey brand owner Jack Daniel’s Properties. The petition filed by Jack Daniel’s appealed the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit’s March 2020 ruling that a “Bad Spaniels” dog toy marketed by VIP Products was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protections against trademark infringement liability under the Rogers test. On January 18, a series of 16 amicus briefs were filed with the Supreme Court, the vast majority of which urged the nation’s highest court to reverse the Ninth Circuit’s ruling and limit the application of the Rogers test to clearly artistic works and exclude consumer products that happened to have some humorous expression. Several amici also pushed back on the Ninth Circuit’s ruling that VIP Products’ use of Jack Daniel’s marks was noncommercial.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit earlier this week ruled in favor of Viacom in a trademark fight over the media conglomerate’s Floribama Shore reality television show. MGFB, the company that filed the appeal, owns the “FLORA-BAMA” trademark and owns and operates the Flora-Bama Lounge on the border of Florida and Alabama. The company filed a cease-and-desist letter in 2017 when Viacom first aired Floribama Shore in 2017. The appeals court judges cited the First Amendment as protecting Viacom’s right to artistic use of “Floribama”. “Creative works of artistic expression are firmly ensconced within the protections of the First Amendment,” wrote the judges.

The U.S. Supreme Court yesterday granted a petition filed in August this year by Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. seeking clarification on whether the First Amendment protects VIP Products, LLC, a maker of dog toys that made humorous use of Jack Daniel’s trademarks for commercial purposes, against claims of infringement and dilution. The High Court previously denied Jack Daniel’s petition in January of 2021, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit “summarily affirmed” the district court’s summary judgment ruling for VIP on remand. In its ruling in 2020, the Ninth Circuit said VIP’s dog toy mimicking a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment protection, reversing the district court’s initial holding that the toy infringed and diluted Jack Daniel’s marks and remanding the case back to the district court for a determination on the merits of the infringement claim.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit yesterday affirmed the ruling of Judge James C. Mahan of the District of Nevada dismissing a trademark infringement case filed by K&K Promotions, which owns the IP rights to famed American daredevil Evel Knievel. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Judge Mahan that the character of Duke Caboom from Walt Disney Studios and Pixar’s Toy Story 4 was not a literal depiction of Knievel, but rather a transformative use.

On June 24, the International Trademark Association (INTA) filed an amicus brief in Vans, Inc. v. MSCHF Product Studio, Inc., a case currently on appeal from the Eastern District of New York to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. In the brief, INTA urges the Second Circuit to clarify the kinds of “expressive works” to which the Rogers test may be applied, and in such a way that the use of Vans trade dress on sneakers sold by MSCHF Product Studio would be actionable for infringement and not protected by the First Amendment simply because MSCHF claims the sneakers are works of art.

There are not many trademark cases that are of equal interest to high fashion, the art world and cutting-edge tech. The ongoing “MetaBirkin” lawsuit is unusual, however, in that it involves a designer brand and two of the latest, trending topics – non-fungible tokens (NFTs) and the metaverse. In a case that has bagged global attention, luxury design house Hermès is suing artist Mason Rothschild in New York for trademark infringement and dilution, misappropriation of its BIRKIN trademark, cybersquatting, false designation of origin and description, and injury to business reputation.

On May 8, the U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado granted National Geographic’s Motion to Dismiss Stouffer’s amended complaint in Stouffer v. National Geographic Partners, LLC. Stouffer sued National Geographic for trademark infringement, unfair competition, and deceptive trade practices. In response, National Geographic asserted that Stouffer’s claims were trademark-based and must be dismissed in order to protect National Geographic’s First Amendment interests. The Court addressed the question of what protections the First Amendment provides to those accused of trademark infringement and ultimately granted National Geographic’s motion to dismiss with prejudice.

Christopher Gordon, under the pseudonym “Randall,” released the Honey Badger movie in 2011 and the 3:20-long video has been viewed more than 89 million times. Gordon filed trademark applications to cover the use of the video’s well-known phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care in various classes including audio books, greeting cards, mugs and clothing. In 2012, Gordon hired a licensing agent who contacted American Greetings, the parent company of co-defendant Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, to discuss a potential licensing deal but those parties never agreed to a deal. Beginning in June 2012, the defendants released a series of seven greeting cards, including birthday, Halloween and election cards, which made use of the trademarked phrase Honey Badger Don’t Care and another well-known phrase from the video, Honey Badger Don’t Give A S—.