Skip to content
Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(The Hill)   A case of Jack Daniels vs hair of the dog may decide free speech in this country   (thehill.com) divider line
    More: Followup, Supreme Court of the United States, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, Satire, court system, Ninth Circuit, district court, lack of sense of humor, Supreme Court  
•       •       •

4203 clicks; posted to Politics » on 27 Nov 2022 at 1:24 PM (9 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



117 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2022-11-27 12:12:27 PM  
Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 1:25:59 PM  
We're boned.
 
2022-11-27 1:28:46 PM  
Expect the worst from this SCOTUS majority and you can only be pleasantly surprised.
 
2022-11-27 1:31:16 PM  
This SCOTUS clearly hasn't read the Second Amendment, and outright ignores the 9th and 14th Amendments just for starters, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they tore apart the First as well. These are the assholes who cited 'precedent' from before the US was even an independent nation to justify their dogma, after all.
 
2022-11-27 1:32:26 PM  
"Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet." On the back is a small disclaimer reading: "This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel's Distillery."

That clearly was not enough for the distillery, which argued that people would be confused by the parody.


Well, when I think of 'Jack Daniel's Whiskey', I do also usually think of shiat on a carpet.
 
2022-11-27 1:34:49 PM  
The strengths of your rights are directly proportional to your wealth, and corporations are people. I fully expect alito and kavanaugh to attempt to redefine "fair use" as "maybe with express prior written permission". I expect handmaiden to go along with them if Roberts joins. Groucho is a bit of a wildcard in this but he has a record of insanely pro corporate decisions, they just aren't as consistent and one dimensional as kav and alitos.

The liberal justices will sanely point out this is obviously fair use and no reasonable person would possibly believe this chew toy was trying to suggest it was an official jack Daniels product.
 
2022-11-27 1:36:04 PM  
Is Jack Daniel's seriously arguing it has cultural icon status?
 
2022-11-27 1:38:23 PM  
The Devil Makes Three - Old Number 7 lyrics
Youtube wKkWFotWyxI
 
2022-11-27 1:40:51 PM  
I'm sure Elon is having his lawyers write up an amicus brief defending.......

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Sorry, I can't finish that without laughing.
 
2022-11-27 1:41:36 PM  
Jonathon Turley loves vagina vandalizing vulva violators, bush bashing box barbarians and Donald JOHN Trump.
 
2022-11-27 1:41:54 PM  
Think they're leaning into the "tarnishes the brand" kind of legalese, but I bet 0 employees think this should even go forward. It's just their probably-overpaid lawyers trying to look like they're working.

The worst Streisand effect here is that now us drinkers here at Fark have suddenly realized that a dog chew toy and Jack Daniels whiskey are, in fact, about the same thing lol.
 
2022-11-27 1:46:07 PM  
The Wacky Packages guys are probably sweating over this one.
 
2022-11-27 1:46:19 PM  
i.pinimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 1:50:11 PM  
Conservatives don't understand humor in the first place, they certainly won't understand the humor used to parody one of America's most important and prestigious corporate citizens.  Why, it might hurt their profits, and that cannot stand.
 
2022-11-27 1:50:15 PM  

LordJiro: This SCOTUS clearly hasn't read the Second Amendment, and outright ignores the 9th and 14th Amendments just for starters, so it wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if they tore apart the First as well. These are the assholes who cited 'precedent' from before the US was even an independent nation to justify their dogma, after all.


If the football prayer case is any measure, they don't even read the facts in the actual case before them.
 
2022-11-27 1:50:51 PM  
I don't think a rolling for Jack would be unreasonable. They make a ton of stupid merchandise, this is obviously meant to look like a bottle of Jack.

If they were super serious and never made themed merchandise that'd be different. But if I saw a Jack chew toy I'd assume it was made by them
 
2022-11-27 1:53:07 PM  

rzrwiresunrise: Is Jack Daniel's seriously arguing it has cultural icon status?


Famous and infamous are sort of the same thing.
 
2022-11-27 1:53:33 PM  

redbucket: If they were super serious and never made themed merchandise that'd be different. But if I saw a Jack chew toy I'd assume it was made by them


You'd assume a cheap rubber doggy chew toy was made by Jack Daniels?

Wow, you're stupid.
 
2022-11-27 1:53:58 PM  
By Jonathan Turley

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 1:54:10 PM  
First they came for the dog chew toys, and I did nothing because I was not a dog chew toy.
 
2022-11-27 1:54:10 PM  
Had to look up picture of Jonathan Turley to see if he wears  a bow tie.  He's really a bow tie kind of guy.  No pics of the bow tie.
 
2022-11-27 1:54:24 PM  

fullyautomatic: Think they're leaning into the "tarnishes the brand" kind of legalese, but I bet 0 employees think this should even go forward. It's just their probably-overpaid lawyers trying to look like they're working.

The worst Streisand effect here is that now us drinkers here at Fark have suddenly realized that a dog chew toy and Jack Daniels whiskey are, in fact, about the same thing lol.


Well, that's what the JD lawyers are claiming - that the bottle of booze and the chew toy are indistinguishable to the average American.  I don't want to drink booze from a dog chew toy, so Crown Royal or Bulleit or even Kentucky Gentleman (shiver!) will have to be what I drink from now on.  Thanks for the heads-up, JD lawyers.  Good work.
 
2022-11-27 1:54:40 PM  
Didn't CNN threaten this website... and succeed (or something like that)?


Whatever.  These type of lawsuits are common.  Even South Park got sued and I'm surprised the Simpsons or SNL haven't been.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on this (in favor the dog chew) in order to establish some reasonable standards for comedy/parody - if that's even possible.
 
2022-11-27 1:54:55 PM  

FlashHarry: By Jonathan Turley

[Fark user image image 250x272]


He wasn't drunk today. It wasn't that terrible of a read.
 
2022-11-27 1:55:05 PM  
So we're stupid.  We own that.   We're proud of that.   Our political choices reflect that.  Now they want to take away our fight to be stupid.  That is crossing the line.
 
2022-11-27 1:57:24 PM  

Hinged: Didn't CNN threaten this website... and succeed (or something like that)?


Whatever.  These type of lawsuits are common.  Even South Park got sued and I'm surprised the Simpsons or SNL haven't been.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on this (in favor the dog chew) in order to establish some reasonable standards for comedy/parody - if that's even possible.


They already established that comedy/parody is protected in the Hustler case.  They don't need to revisit that again.  But, more than half of this SCOTUS doesn't understand stare decisis, so who knows.
 
2022-11-27 1:57:35 PM  
"Bad Spaniels, the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet." On the back is a small disclaimer reading: "This product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel's Distillery."

That clearly was not enough for the distillery, which argued that people would be confused by the parody.


If you've had too much Jack Daniels, sure.
 
2022-11-27 1:58:48 PM  
There is no guarantee that SCOTUS will take up the case.
 
2022-11-27 1:59:36 PM  

Aquapope: Hinged: Didn't CNN threaten this website... and succeed (or something like that)?


Whatever.  These type of lawsuits are common.  Even South Park got sued and I'm surprised the Simpsons or SNL haven't been.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on this (in favor the dog chew) in order to establish some reasonable standards for comedy/parody - if that's even possible.

They already established that comedy/parody is protected in the Hustler case.  They don't need to revisit that again.  But, more than half of this SCOTUS doesn't understand stare decisis, so who knows.


Oh, they understand it. They just decided that chaos is more fun than rule of law.
 
2022-11-27 1:59:49 PM  
Jack Daniels is harming their own brand by pushing this stupid law suit.
 
2022-11-27 2:00:34 PM  
Was anyone really confused by this?

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 2:00:58 PM  

red5ish: Jack Daniels is harming their own brand by pushing this stupid law suit.


Evan Williams is cheaper and tastes better.
 
2022-11-27 2:02:17 PM  
Joke's on them, I'm wearing my Alan movie shirt and playing with my Fashion Horse.

liveabout.comView Full Size


liveabout.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 2:03:45 PM  
Surprisingly for Turley, that's quite a rational article.
 
2022-11-27 2:04:01 PM  

redbucket: I don't think a rolling for Jack would be unreasonable. They make a ton of stupid merchandise, this is obviously meant to look like a bottle of Jack.

If they were super serious and never made themed merchandise that'd be different. But if I saw a Jack chew toy I'd assume it was made by them


The proper question would be if you saw a chew toy, would it diminish any reputation of the brand if you found out it was not made by JD? You might assume it's made by them, and it's then cute and authorized and they get the profit. If the toy was made by someone else, does it make you feel any different about JD as a brand or product?
 
2022-11-27 2:06:18 PM  

Thoreny: There is no guarantee that SCOTUS will take up the case.


They have already agreed to hear the case: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-takes-jack-daniels-case-dog-toy-compamy-rcna58333
 
2022-11-27 2:08:24 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: Evan Williams is cheaper and tastes better.


On a taste-per-dollar scale, EW is the best of major bottom-shelf bourbons. The black label is good to mix and even good for sipping. The white label is like $1-2 more and gets you into a bonded bourbon (minimum 4 years and also 100 proof) that is very good.

Benchmark 8 is slightly cheaper, made by Buffalo Trace (same corn liquor going into the same barrels) and for some reason it comes out awful. It has this weird fruity bubblegum funk in the taste and smell.
 
2022-11-27 2:08:42 PM  

JTtheCajun: Was anyone really confused by this?

[Fark user image 850x637]


i.ytimg.comView Full Size
 
2022-11-27 2:08:46 PM  
FTFA: ...offensive cartoon...

That reminds me, new Oglaf.

Fark user imageView Full Size


NSFW
 
2022-11-27 2:10:04 PM  

fullyautomatic: Joke's on them, I'm wearing my Alan movie shirt and playing with my Fashion Horse.

[liveabout.com image 850x855]

[liveabout.com image 850x672]


God, those horses have an expression that says they've just been asked to dinner by a MLP fan and "maybe a coffee" afterwards.
 
2022-11-27 2:10:57 PM  

MusicMakeMyHeadPound: red5ish: Jack Daniels is harming their own brand by pushing this stupid law suit.

Evan Williams is cheaper and tastes better.


Yup, that was my go-to for basic whiskey, tastes better by a large margin. JD tastes like they took their own product then added a assload of hamster cage woodchip flavors, buckets of corn syrup, and some unknown caustic DuPont laboratory chemical

Even Williams especially if you can find the green label that's been filtered more or something, is worlds cleaner and smoother.
 
2022-11-27 2:12:39 PM  

Hinged: Didn't CNN threaten this website... and succeed (or something like that)?


Whatever.  These type of lawsuits are common.  Even South Park got sued and I'm surprised the Simpsons or SNL haven't been.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on this (in favor the dog chew) in order to establish some reasonable standards for comedy/parody - if that's even possible.


Point of order: It's THIS Supreme Court that is ruling on it. Expect a 5-4 decision for JD, and the beginning of the end for any concept of Fair Use
 
2022-11-27 2:13:55 PM  

fullyautomatic: Even Williams especially if you can find the green label that's been filtered more or something, is worlds cleaner and smoother.


Black label is 86 proof; Green label is 80 proof.
 
2022-11-27 2:14:34 PM  

Professor Duck: Hinged: Didn't CNN threaten this website... and succeed (or something like that)?


Whatever.  These type of lawsuits are common.  Even South Park got sued and I'm surprised the Simpsons or SNL haven't been.

The Supreme Court needs to rule on this (in favor the dog chew) in order to establish some reasonable standards for comedy/parody - if that's even possible.

Point of order: It's THIS Supreme Court that is ruling on it. Expect a 5-4 decision for JD, and the beginning of the end for any concept of Fair Use



Yeah, but only one of the judges is a known drinker and dogs are more popular than drunks.
 
2022-11-27 2:15:07 PM  
Wait a minute.
The bottle looks like a bottle of Jack and is intended to look like a bottle of Jack,
Now if they did that as a prop that went into some TV show and were sued, then I think it runs afoul of fair use Jack Daniels to sue them for trademark infringement.

But when you sell said doggy toy as a product to make money, that's different. Then the question becomes "how different?"

Now the law can be a tricky thing. Where are they selling it and how?
It it primarily sold as a gag gift from places that also sell fake dog poop and phony puddles of puke and fart spray?
Or is it sold at PetCo with all the other doggie toys?

If the latter, you're essentially stealing from JD by using their well established trademark design to have your doggy toy sell well compared to other doggy toys. If the former, your selling more of a gag than a doggy toy.

The hard legal choice is to figure out how you draw a line between those two because it involves intent.

Of course I realize that the general sentiment on fark is that if you're a wealthy company you aren't entitled to any IP protection over anything, because reasons, including because you want to download free music and movies like you did when you first discovered the internet.
 
2022-11-27 2:16:06 PM  
It's copyright infringement, not free speech. Chill the fark out.
 
2022-11-27 2:16:42 PM  
Serious question time. Who is paying to bring this suit to the SC? Is it really Jack Daniels? Who is paying the dog toy people to defend against this and keeping them from coming to a financial arrangement?

This case isn't an accident. Someone wants to test the boundary here.
 
2022-11-27 2:19:35 PM  
I wonder what this will mean for the company that makes dildos shaped like Justice Alito?
 
2022-11-27 2:20:50 PM  

scanman61: redbucket: If they were super serious and never made themed merchandise that'd be different. But if I saw a Jack chew toy I'd assume it was made by them

You'd assume a cheap rubber doggy chew toy was made by Jack Daniels?

Wow, you're stupid.


It's a red herring. It isn't about assumptions about who makes the toy. That's not the point at all.
The point is piggybacking on the success and reputation of somebody else's trademark for commercial purposes. The point is distinguishing between what is in essence a gag and what is it's own essentially commercial endevour.

\ I like english spellings with the added 'u'.
\\ I like my whisky without the 'ey
\\\ but I usually call it single malt scotch
 
2022-11-27 2:24:19 PM  
For those seeking to use satire or parody of corporations, jokes often run into trademark or other lawsuits and result in a little more than "ha, ha, thump."

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
Displayed 50 of 117 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.