Page 5 - Jack Daniel Properties News Today

The crowds were out last week at the U.S. Supreme Court for oral argument in the unique trademark case of Jack Daniel's Properties v. VIP Products involving a dog chew toy in the shape of a Jack Daniel's bottle...

The US Supreme Court debated whether a dog toy company potentially infringed upon the trademark of Jack Daniel’s by marketing a dog toy that parodies the distiller’s product. Kentucky-based Jack Daniel’s Properties sued Phoenix-based VIP Products for creating a vinyl chew toy named Bad Spaniels that looks like Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle and with similar promotional

We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP

As expected, Wednesday’s argument in Jack Daniel's Properties v VIP Products showcased the justices grappling with line-drawing. At issue in the case was how First Amendment trademark principles should apply to a dog toy that pokes fun at Jack Daniel’s whiskey – a toy the size and shape of a Jack Da

It is fair to expect Wednesday’s arguments in Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products to be heated, as the justices consider the possibility that protection for parodies requires an exception to traditional trademark protections.

The U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments in an appeal from Jack Daniel's, which is suing VIP products to stop selling dog toys that resemble its whiskey bottle.

The Supreme Court, which is hearing two IP cases this week, should limit the power of US courts to rule on foreign sales

A trademark dispute between a liquor company and a maker of novelty dog toys may not sound like an important First Amendment battleground, but the latest trademark case to come before the U.S. Supreme Court could have serious consequences for online speech and political activism. Trademarks are...

MetaBirkins Not Protected Under First Amendment, Says Court In First-Ever NFT Trademark Ruling: In the highly-anticipated case of Hermès v. Mason Rothschild, Wednesday's verdict now establishes the very first ruling on trademark infringement with consumer products and digital art.

Owners of registered trademarks understand the significant, inherent value of Intellectual Property.