|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
CU Medallion [60215]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 42553
Joined: 11/30/98
|
|
|
|
 |
All-In [49030]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38807
Joined: 12/31/97
|
I love that companies who spend lots of time talking
2
Jun 8, 2023, 2:54 PM
|
|
about frivolous litigation and how we need caps on damages and to shield them from liability are at least doing their part to keep portions of the legal profession in business.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
for sure. I'm grateful to them
1
Jun 8, 2023, 3:23 PM
|
|
and also to SC's own Pinckney who first suggested the inclusion of the IP clause in the Constitution.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [27064]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 15656
Joined: 1/26/22
|
How do we balance strong IP rights (which I think are good)
1
Jun 8, 2023, 3:41 PM
|
|
with patent trolls, who are just awful people?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
Re: Glad the Supreme Court is dealing with real important stuff
Jun 8, 2023, 2:59 PM
|
|
Between this and the Prince/Warhol decision, SCOTUS is sure opining on fair use issues this term.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [2817]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 888
Joined: 3/15/18
|
Re: Glad the Supreme Court is dealing with real important stuff
2
Jun 8, 2023, 3:02 PM
|
|
The headline is funny, and the underlying case is whimsical. Yet the trademark and constitutional issues this raises are significant. I.E. : can you get around trademark protections by asserting something is “parody”, and that parody/free speech protections trump trademark law?
It’s big for all those who hold a trademark, and for brand protection, despite it being a jack Daniel’s v dog toy case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-TigerNet [11628]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 9789
Joined: 5/17/02
|
^^^This.***
1
Jun 8, 2023, 3:28 PM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [47795]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 44515
Joined: 9/5/02
|
those of us in the IP field are very interested in this case
3
Jun 8, 2023, 3:21 PM
|
|
and I must say the got this one right. The 9th Circuit had really screwed up the law and the Supremes righted the ship in this case.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heisman Winner [135566]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 91616
Joined: 12/6/98
|
I think if I were a Supreme Court justice, I would always
2
Jun 8, 2023, 3:29 PM
|
|
side with whiskey.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
Re: those of us in the IP field are very interested in this case
2
Jun 8, 2023, 3:30 PM
[ in reply to those of us in the IP field are very interested in this case ] |
|
But they emphasized the narrowness of the (unanimous) decision. I think the company didn't do enough to distinguish the Bad Spaniels bottle-toy. I can see the argument that it would confuse consumers on first glance. If Jack wanted to make branded dog toys, that is how they would look.
The Prince/Warhol case was more interesting (and one could argue was a bad step on a slippery slow - though I wouldn't and I'm big on allowing fair use). I think that one was especially interesting because of the strange bedfellows it made amongst the justices.
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [42130]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 38223
Joined: 11/30/98
|
It's important
2
Jun 8, 2023, 3:25 PM
|
|
If a company can't protect its trademark, it opens the door to all sorts of messes. Stuff like this protects Clemson, too. I'm surprised it made it this far but glad the court sided with Jack.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Associate AD [828]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 3982
Joined: 4/14/09
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Medallion [56055]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 31633
Joined: 8/27/02
|
Guess I'm in the minority here.
3
Jun 8, 2023, 3:45 PM
|
|
"A parody must 'conjure up' 'enough of [an] original to make the object of its critical wit recognizable,'" Kagan wrote. "Yet to succeed, the parody must also create contrasts, so that its message of ridicule or pointed humor comes clear. And once that is done (if that is done), a parody is not often likely to create confusion."
Recognizable but with contrasts and clear humor. That's a pretty accurate description of this dog toy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
110%er [7118]
TigerPulse: 96%
Posts: 9687
Joined: 10/6/21
|
Re: Guess I'm in the minority here.
1
Jun 8, 2023, 9:43 PM
|
|
Although disagreeing with you as far as the SCOTUS ruling, I agree that the ability to distinguish that which constitutes parody vs that which constitutes brand /IP identity is largely subjective.
Not unlike a joke. If some think it’s funny, and some don’t, then who is wrong?
|
|
|
|
|
|
All-In [34102]
TigerPulse: 100%
Posts: 33606
Joined: 9/13/99
|
I'm so confused! Did Jack Daniels make both products?
1
Jun 8, 2023, 3:56 PM
|
|
I'm kidding, but apparently the Supreme Court thinks people will in real life be that confused.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Orange Blooded [4775]
TigerPulse: 99%
Posts: 4817
Joined: 1/8/19
|
Re: Glad the Supreme Court is dealing with real important stuff
1
Jun 8, 2023, 4:01 PM
|
|
Maybe they can do something about that gas station Fireball next!
|
|
|
|
|
|
CU Guru [1511]
TigerPulse: 94%
Posts: 2316
Joined: 1/14/05
|
Re: Glad the Supreme Court is dealing with real important stuff
Jun 9, 2023, 12:46 PM
|
|
What part of this is asinine?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Replies: 16
| visibility 1
|
|
|
50
