Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

VitaminPb t1_ix6806k wrote

Reply to comment by xantxant in Jack Daniel’s asks Supreme Court to hear dog toy dispute. Will they bite? by WREGnewschannel3

The argument is “We have a product consumers like. This product is playing off our product popularity to make sales and profit without being licensed.” Which is a valid claim.

Could I make a sell Tesla plushies or toys and call them “Telsa”?

−3

0110010001100010 t1_ix6h9vf wrote

>Could I make a sell Tesla plushies or toys and call them “Telsa”?

No, but that's not the claim here. The product isn't called "Jack Daniel's" nor does it have any of the same language on the "bottle."

The toy is "Bad Spaniels"

Furthermore:

>The toy that has Jack Daniel’s so doggone mad mimics the square shape of its whisky bottle as well as its black-and-white label and amber-colored liquor while adding what it calls “poop humor.” While the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the parody proclaims: “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of the original’s note that it is 40% alcohol by volume, the parody says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

So you comparison is totally wrong.

7

VitaminPb t1_ix6zglv wrote

You misread what the name for the supposed toys was. I described something that looked like another thing with a different name.

−3