Jack Daniel's™ Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. ___ (2023)
VIP makes a chewable dog toy that looks like a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle; the words “Jack Daniel’s” become “Bad Spaniels.” “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” turns into “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” Jack Daniel’s demanded that VIP stop selling the toy.
VIP sought a declaratory judgment that Bad Spaniels neither infringed nor diluted Jack Daniel’s trademarks. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed. The Lanham Act defines a trademark by its primary function: identifying a product’s source and distinguishing that source from others. A typical infringement case examines whether the defendant’s use of a mark is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive,” 15 U.S.C. 1114(1)(A), 1125(a)(1)(A). A typical dilution case considers whether the defendant “harm[ed] the reputation” of a trademark. VIP cited the “Rogers test,” which requires dismissal of an infringement claim when “expressive works” are involved unless the complainant can show either that the challenged use of a mark “has no artistic relevance to the underlying work” or that it “explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” The Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of VIP.
The Supreme Court vacated. When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods, the Rogers test does not apply. Consumer confusion about source is most likely to arise when someone uses another’s trademark as a trademark. Bad Spaniels was not automatically entitled to Rogers’ protection because it “communicate[d] a humorous message.” VIP used the Bad Spaniels trademark and trade dress as source identifiers. Although VIP’s effort to parody Jack Daniel’s does not justify the application of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis on remand.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
Syllabus
JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC. v. VIP PRODUCTS LLC
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the ninth circuit
No. 22–148. Argued March 22, 2023—Decided June 8, 2023
The Lanham Act, the core federal trademark statute, defines a trademark by its primary function: identifying a product’s source and distinguishing that source from others. In serving that function, trademarks help consumers select the products they want to purchase (or avoid) and help producers reap the financial rewards associated with a product’s good reputation. To help protect trademarks, the Lanham Act creates federal causes of action for trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In a typical infringement case, the question is whether the defendant’s use of a mark is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U. S. C. §§1114(1)(A), 1125(a)(1)(A). In a typical dilution case, the question is whether the defendant “harm[ed] the reputation” of a famous trademark. §§1125(c)(2)(A), (C).
Respondent VIP Products makes a squeaky, chewable dog toy designed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. But not entirely. On the toy, for example, the words “Jack Daniel’s” become “Bad Spaniels.” And “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” turns into “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” These jokes did not impress petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, which owns trademarks in the distinctive Jack Daniel’s bottle and in many of the words and graphics on its label.
Soon after the Bad Spaniels toy hit the market, Jack Daniel’s demanded that VIP stop selling it. VIP filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Bad Spaniels neither infringed nor diluted Jack Daniel’s trademarks. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed for infringement and dilution. At summary judgment, VIP argued that Jack Daniel’s infringement claim failed under the so-called Rogers test—a threshold test developed by the Second Circuit and designed to protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context. See Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994. When “expressive works” are involved, VIP contended, that test requires dismissal of an infringement claim at the outset unless the complainant can show either (1) that the challenged use of a mark “has no artistic relevance to the underlying work” or (2) that it “explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Id., at 999. Because Jack Daniel’s could not make that showing, VIP claimed, the Lanham Act’s statutory “likelihood of confusion” standard became irrelevant. And as for the dilution claim, VIP urged that Jack Daniel’s could not succeed because Bad Spaniels was a parody of Jack Daniel’s and therefore made “fair use” of its famous marks. §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii).
The District Court rejected both of VIP’s contentions for a common reason: because VIP had used the cribbed Jack Daniel’s features as trademarks—i.e., to identify the source of its own products. As the District Court saw it, when another’s trademark is used for “source identification,” Rogers does not apply, and instead the infringement suit turns on likelihood of confusion. The court likewise rejected VIP’s invocation of the fair-use exclusion, holding that parodies fall within that exclusion only when they do not use a famous mark to identify the source of the alleged diluter’s product. The case proceeded to a bench trial, where the District Court found that consumers were likely to be confused about the source of the Bad Spaniels toy and that the toy’s negative associations with dog excrement (e.g., “The Old No. 2”) would harm Jack Daniel’s reputation. The Ninth Circuit reversed. Finding the infringement claim subject to the threshold Rogers test, the Court of Appeals remanded the case to the District Court to decide whether Jack Daniel’s could satisfy either prong of that test. And the Court of Appeals awarded judgment on the dilution claim to VIP, holding that because Bad Spaniels parodies Jack Daniel’s, it falls under the “noncommercial use” exclusion. §1125(c)(3)(C). On remand, the District Court found that Jack Daniel’s could not satisfy either prong of Rogers, and so granted summary judgment to VIP on infringement. The Court of Appeals summarily affirmed.
Held:
1. When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer’s own goods, the Rogers test does not apply. Pp. 10–19.
(a) The Second Circuit created the Rogers test for titles of “artistic works” based on its view that such titles have an “expressive element” implicating “ First Amendment values” and carry only a “slight risk” of confusing consumers about the “source or content” of the underlying work. 875 F. 2d, at 998–1000. Over the decades, lower courts adopting Rogers have confined it to similar cases, in which a trademark is used not to designate a work’s source, but solely to perform some other expressive function. See, e.g., Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 901 (use of the Barbie name in band’s song “Barbie Girl” was “not [as] a source identifier”). The same courts, though, routinely conduct likelihood-of-confusion analysis in cases where trademarks are used as trademarks—i.e., to designate source. See, e.g., Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410, 414–415 (parodic pet perfumes did not trigger Rogers because defendant’s use of Tommy Hilfiger’s mark was “at least in part” for “source identification”). Thus, whatever Rogers’ merit—an issue on which this Court takes no position—it has always been a cabined doctrine: It has not insulated from ordinary trademark scrutiny the use of trademarks as trademarks.
That conclusion fits trademark law, and reflects its primary mission. Consumer confusion about source—trademark law’s cardinal sin—is most likely to arise when someone uses another’s trademark as a trademark. In such cases, Rogers has no proper application. Nor does that result change because the use of a mark has other expressive content. Under the Ninth Circuit’s approach, Bad Spaniels was automatically entitled to Rogers’ protection because it “communicate[d] a humorous message.” 953 F.3d 1170, 1175. On that view, few trademark cases would ever get to the likelihood-of-confusion analysis. And the Ninth Circuit was mistaken to believe that the First Amendment demanded such a result. When a mark is used as a source identifier, the First Amendment does not demand a threshold inquiry. Pp. 10–17.
(b) In this case, VIP conceded that it used the Bad Spaniels trademark and trade dress as source identifiers. And VIP has said and done more in the same direction with respect to Bad Spaniels and other similar products. The only question remaining is whether the Bad Spaniels trademarks are likely to cause confusion. Although VIP’s effort to parody Jack Daniel’s does not justify use of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis. This Court remands that issue to the courts below. Pp. 17–19.
2. The Lanham Act’s exclusion from dilution liability for “[a]ny noncommerical use of a mark,” §1125(c)(3)(C), does not shield parody, criticism, or commentary when an alleged diluter uses a mark as a designation of source for its own goods. The Ninth Circuit’s holding to the contrary puts the noncommercial exclusion in conflict with the statute’s fair-use exclusion. The latter exclusion specifically covers uses “parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon” a famous mark owner, §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii), but does not apply when the use is “as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services,” §1125(c)(3)(A). Given that carve-out, parody is exempt from liability only if not used to designate source. The Ninth Circuit’s expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion—that parody is always exempt, regardless whether it designates source—effectively nullifies Congress’s express limit on the fair-use exclusion for parody. Pp. 19–20.
953 F.3d 1170, vacated and remanded.
Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas and Barrett, JJ., joined.
Judgment issued. |
Judgment VACATED and case REMANDED. Kagan, J., delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court. Sotomayor, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Gorsuch, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Thomas and Barrett, JJ., joined. |
Argued. For petitioner: Lisa S. Blatt, Washington, D. C.; and Matthew Guarnieri, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Department of Justice, Washington, D. C. (for United States, as amicus curiae.) For respondent: Bennett E. Cooper, Phoenix, Ariz. |
Reply of Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. submitted. |
Reply of petitioner Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of Motion Picture Association, Inc. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument DENIED. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument GRANTED. |
Amicus brief of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. submitted. |
Opposition to motion of Motion Picture Association, Inc. filed by petitioner. |
Response of Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. to motion submitted. |
Amicus brief of Trademark Law Professors submitted. |
Amicus brief of Electronic Frontier Foundation submitted. |
Brief amici curiae of Authors Alliance and ComicMix filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression submitted. |
Amicus brief of Authors Alliance and ComicMix submitted. |
Amicus brief of First Amendment Professors submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. submitted. |
Motion of Motion Picture Association, Inc. for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Amicus brief of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. not accepted for filing. (February 28, 2023--Corrected brief and PDF to be submitted.) |
Motion of Motion Picture Association, Inc. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae and for divided argument filed. |
Motion of Motion Picture Association, Inc. for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. |
Brief amici curiae of First Amendment Professors filed. (Distributed)(Mar. 2, 2023) |
Brief amicus curiae of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. filed.(Mar.6, 2023) (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of 30 Trademark Law Professors filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amicus curiae of Electronic Frontier Foundation filed. (Distributed) |
Amicus brief of Dan McCall, Sky Shatz, and Don Stewart submitted. |
Amicus brief of Professor Andrew C. Michaels submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of Professor Andrew C. Michaels filed. (Distributed) |
Brief amici curiae of Dan McCall, et al. filed. (Distributed) |
Motion of United States for leave to participate in oral argument and for divided argument submitted. |
Motion of the Solicitor General for leave to participate in oral argument as amicus curiae, for divided argument, and for enlargement of time for oral argument filed. |
Motion for Leave to File One Packet of Crayola Colored Pencils of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. submitted. |
Motion for Leave to File One Packet of Crayola Colored Pencils of MSCHF Product Studio, Inc. not accepted for filing. (February 28, 2023) |
Brief of VIP Products LLC submitted. |
Brief of respondent VIP Products LLC filed. (Distributed) |
CIRCULATED |
Record requested from the U.S.C.A. for the Ninth Circuit. |
All records from the USCA-9th Circuit are available on PACER. Sealed records from the USDC-Arizona were transmitted electronically. |
SET FOR ARGUMENT on Wednesday, March 22, 2023. |
Amicus brief of New York Intellectual Property Law Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Craft Spirits Association, American Distilled Spirits Alliance, The Beer Institute, The Brewers Association, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, and the Wine Institute submitted. |
Amicus brief of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Scholars, Former Judges, and Former Government Officials submitted. |
Amicus brief of Levi Strauss & Co. and Patagonia Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of NIKE, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of Campari America LLC submitted. |
Amicus brief of Motion Picture Association, Inc. submitted. |
Amicus brief of united states submitted. |
Amicus brief of Constellation Brands, Inc submitted. |
Amicus brief of Intellectual Property Owners Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Intellectual Property Law Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of The International Trademark Association submitted. |
Amicus brief of Campbell Soup Company submitted. |
Amicus brief of Intellectual Property Professors and Adjunct Professors submitted. |
Amicus brief of American Apparel & Footwear Association, Footwear Distributors & Retailers of America, Council of Fashion Designers of America, and The Accessories Council submitted. |
Brief amicus curiae of The International Trademark Association in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Nike, Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Constellation Brands, Inc filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of New York Intellectual Property Law Association in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Levi Strauss & Co., et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Campbell Soup Company filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Apparel & Footwear Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Campari America LLC filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Scholars, Former Judges, and Former Government Officials filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Intellectual Property Owners Association filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Craft Spirits Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of United States filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America, et al. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of Intellectual Property Professors, et al. in support of neither party filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Motion Picture Association, Inc. in support of neither party filed. |
Joint Appendix submitted. |
Brief of Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. submitted. |
Brief of petitioner Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. filed. |
Joint appendix filed. (Statement of costs filed) |
Motion to extend the time to file the briefs on the merits granted. The time to file the joint appendix and petitioner's brief on the merits is extended to and including January 11, 2023. The time to file respondent's brief on the merits is extended to and including February 16, 2023. |
Blanket Consent filed by Petitioner, Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. |
Motion of Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. for an extension of time submitted. |
Motion for an extension of time to file the briefs on the merits filed. |
Motion for an extension of time filed. |
Petition GRANTED. |
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/18/2022. |
Reply of petitioner Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. filed. (Distributed) |
Brief of respondent VIP Products LLC in opposition filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Constellation Brands, Inc. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of American Intellectual Property Law Association filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Campbell Soup Company filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of Levi Strauss & Co. and Patagonia Inc. filed. |
Brief amici curiae of American Craft Spirits Association, et al. filed. |
Brief amicus curiae of the International Trademark Association filed. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response is granted and the time is extended to and including October 17, 2022. |
Motion to extend the time to file a response from September 16, 2022 to October 17, 2022, submitted to The Clerk. |
Petition for a writ of certiorari filed. (Response due September 16, 2022) |