Submitted by WREGnewschannel3 t3_z0eowe in nottheonion
themehboat t1_ix63602 wrote
Reply to comment by xantxant in Jack Daniel’s asks Supreme Court to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite? by WREGnewschannel3
Right? No one is buying this dog toy and then getting upset that they can’t drink it. Or if they are, they’ve had enough to drink.
GabeTheJerk t1_ix6otu5 wrote
Or shouldn't be allowed to drink, vote or own a gun
tr00p3r t1_ix78bao wrote
No but they are buying it because it is related to Jack Daniels. If they want to make a toy alcohol bottle just use something completely made up... Oh wait. That's not funny so it won't sell.
hiimsubclavian t1_ix7n5fj wrote
Yes, you've just described the definition of parody. Which happens to be protected by the first amendment.
tr00p3r t1_ix7p8z5 wrote
It's worth going to court. See examples at the bottom of this page: https://www.cotmanip.com/articles/fair-use-parody#:~:text=A%20parody%20is%20fair%20use,which%20one%20work%20imitates%20another.
The toy doesn't seem to make fun or comment on the jack Daniels brand, it's just a copy with changes.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments