Jack Daniels Sues Toy Company Over Potential 'Poop Jokes'

Jack Daniels is making it clear that it will not be the butt of a joke for another company’s financial gain.

The lawyers for the whisky brand are in court today to shut down “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” (hopefully) for their parody dog toy that has the potential to stir up poop-related jokes. The alcohol brand plan to use the company’s First Amendment rights.

These right claims that the dog toy company is using notable brand marks to sell humorous products, violating the whisky brand’s trademark. The toy in question is shaped similarly to the Jack Daniels whisky bottle.

The company claims that the toy can damage its reputation and the brand is not being too uptight about its reaction. “To be sure, everyone likes a good joke,” Jack Daniel's legal team wrote in the filed court docs. “But VIP’s profit-motivated ‘joke’ confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill.”

The bottle uses black labeling and a similar font style as the big brand's popular item. On the whisky bottle’s label, it says, “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” and on the plush dog toy, it says, “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.”

Instead of the information on the alcohol proof it has the info of how much poop the owner is going to have to clean up. “40% ALC. BY VOL. (80 PROOF)” with “43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.”

The toy company attempted to cover its butt by sticking a tag on the toy that reads that it’s “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.” The legal team for Jack Daniels, however, insists that the amendment act was infringed upon and they are protected under the “expressive work,” section of the amendment because the toy was made humorously.

The liquor brand initially won its court case but an appeal made by VIP products who created the toy is being heard today. In the appeal, the lawyers for VIP said:

“This case “deals with a very common thing of pitting somebody who has trademark rights … against another who is saying, ‘I’m entitled to (use those marks) under the First Amendment because it is a parody. And I need to take enough of the mark in order to make it funny. People have to get the joke.’”

Mark Sommers, the trademark attorney for VIP is hoping that this landmark ruling will be in their favor. He insists that it can help the law overall for smaller brands going up against bigger brands.

It will “define that line that exists between the First Amendment right of expression – be that parody, be that art, whatever you want to express – versus the important trademark issues that are here where brand owners who have invested a tremendous amount of goodwill don’t want their trademarks used in a manner which could result in potential confusion among the consuming public.”

The big brand isn’t hearing any of it. They see this as another way for people to steal from others and capitalize off of already established brands.

This court ruling “gives copycats free license to prey on unsuspecting consumers and mark holders,” the attorneys for the whisky brand insist. “No one disputes that VIP is trying to be funny. But alcohol and toys don’t mix well, and the same is true for beverages and excrement.”

Overall, the brand insists. “The next case could involve more troubling combinations – food and poison, cartoon characters and pornography, children’s toys and illegal drugs, and so on.”

This argument can go on forever, but luckily for both parties, the Supreme Court is expected to rule on this today!