Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

WexfordHo t1_ix557uu wrote

I really doubt that the SCOTUS will hear this one.

80

Chard069 t1_ix5kjsb wrote

That depends on how much JD arrives on SCOTUS justices' front porches. From anonymous donors, of course. I recall certain jurisdictions where a favorable property assessment could be bought with a case of spirits. Just an anonymous donation, of course.

43

mbta1 t1_ix5ybfo wrote

If I recall, Kavanaugh likes alcohol

21

pilgrim93 t1_ix60f33 wrote

Can’t remember if hard liquor was included in his list but he is for sure on record about his beer stance.

8

Carlweathersfeathers t1_ix6bb8d wrote

I’m not sure what the show Scrubs has to do with this case, but if JD shows up without Turk, it’s a no from me dog

6

Chard069 t1_ix6lofo wrote

I never saw SCRUBS. My JD reference was for Jack Daniels. Sorry to have confused you.

3

TBoneBaggetteBaggins t1_ixfioj8 wrote

Well they did.

1

WexfordHo t1_ixfiusq wrote

Yeah I’m surprised, this seemed like an easy pass to me.

1

TBoneBaggetteBaggins t1_ixfwbrs wrote

Most cases are. Frankly, if they want to make things like this more acceptable, they needed to take the case. As things stand now, in most courts this would be a violation. Of course, the lower court ruling here seems like an outlier, so they may end up strengthening brand owner rights if they reverse, which is usually why they take IP cases.

2