Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.
The Supreme Court reviewed whether the Rogers test applies when a trademark is used as a source identifier for an infringer's goods. The Court determined that the Rogers test does not apply in such cases, focusing instead on the likelihood of consumer confusion. The case was remanded to determine if the Bad Spaniels trademarks are likely to cause confusion.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.
The Court held that when a trademark is used as a source identifier, the Rogers test does not apply.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
The case involves the application of the Rogers test, which is designed to protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)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.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
The Rogers test does not apply.
Consumer confusion about source—trademark law's cardinal sin—is most likely to arise when someone uses another's trademark as a trademark.
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.