For you whiskey guys...

[horshack.sixpack]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65043219

Over the top or warranted? Seems silly to me.

 

[Car Ramrod.sixpack]

Silly but warranted. What the article does not mention is the shape of the bottle vs the toy and I have a feeling JD has the bottle shape trademarked. If you let one company infringe on your trademark and you are aware of it could legally leave the door open for other companies to do the same.

It also could be a smart move on JD's part to take a small toy company to the supreme court. The toy company probably doesn't have the legal team that JD does or another liquor company that is infringing their trademarks. If the supreme court rules in JD favor they have an iron clad ruling and JD can go after anyone.

Pick on the little guy so you can bring down the giant. One of the many reasons why I hold a dark place in my soul for lawyers.

 

[Boom Boom]

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65043219

Over the top or warranted? Seems silly to me.

Seems like acceptable use of fair use. It's not reasonable to think a reasonable consumer would legitimately confuse the two. Trademark law is not there to protect a good from being made fun of. Though IMO it should mean something when the "fair use" is solely to turn a profit, such as in this case when the "parody" is a product for sale, as opposed to say an SNL sketch. Profit sharing should be required.

 

[greenbean.sixpack]

Silly waste of time and money. Everyone loses but the lawyers.

 

[Boom Boom]

What the article does not mention is the shape of the bottle vs the toy and I have a feeling JD has the bottle shape trademarked.

The key word there being "bottle". If this was a parody hot sauce or any other liquid consumer product held in a too-simarlarly shaped bottle (even without the similar name, markings, etc), then I would agree with you. If this was a dog toy that was a parody of a liquor bottle, but had the JD bottle shape with another name, I would also agree with you as that may confuse consumers as to the actual liquor products. But this isn't a bottle, and no one could confuse it with a liquor product, so fair use IMO.

 

[jethreauxdawg]

They’re just marking their turf

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Super interested in the outcome of this case... Been waiting for years to launch my Puppy Van Tinkle line of doggy potty training treats.

 

[Car Ramrod.sixpack]

The key word there being "bottle". If this was a parody hot sauce or any other liquid consumer product held in a too-simarlarly shaped bottle (even without the similar name, markings, etc), then I would agree with you. If this was a dog toy that was a parody of a liquor bottle, but had the JD bottle shape with another name, I would also agree with you as that may confuse consumers as to the actual liquor products. But this isn't a bottle, and no one could confuse it with a liquor product, so fair use IMO.

What if the bottle is not just a vessel to hold their product but also a symbol of their brand and trademarked as such? If you take down the dog toy company it makes it much easier to take down the cut rate liquor company copping your bottle.

 

[Boom Boom]

What if the bottle is not just a vessel to hold their product but also a symbol of their brand and trademarked as such? If you take down the dog toy company it makes it much easier to take down the cut rate liquor company copping your bottle.

I agree, but my very limited understanding of the law at issue says that's not the issue. I mean, it makes sense for JD to go after this for the reasons you stated, I just think they don't have much chance of winning based on the law. And I hope they dont, because the law should side with the law, not the better funded plaintiff.

Thread highjack, but supposedly the new 10 and 12 year single barrel JD releases are really really good. I may have to break my rule of not buying whiskey more than $50 to verify.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

Thread highjack, but supposedly the new 10 and 12 year single barrel JD releases are really really good. I may have to break my rule of not buying whiskey more than $50 to verify.

You admit you were wrong about fiscal and monetary stimulus/policy causing inflation I will gladly send you a 2 oz sample... The JD 10 is only $300 on the secondary market and it's fantastic.

 

[Boom Boom]

You admit you were wrong about fiscal and monetary stimulus/policy causing inflation I will gladly send you a 2 oz sample... The JD 10 is only $300 on the secondary market and it's fantastic.


View attachment 321170

I would gladly admit I was wrong.....if I was wrong.

 

[PooPopsBaldHead]

I would gladly admit I was wrong.....if I was wrong.

Touché. More for me.

Cheers. Man at those legs...

 

[Dawgbite]

That’s a Trade Dress infringement. It so much easier to prove than either a patent infringement or a trademark violation. You can’t copy someone else’s uniq packaging once it becomes recognizable in the marketplace.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Was stupid to make an exact replica.

 

[BulldogBlitz]

None of what the toy designer did was accidental or coincidental.

 

[mcdawg22]

That’s a Trade Dress infringement. It so much easier to prove than either a patent infringement or a trademark violation. You can’t copy someone else’s uniq packaging once it becomes recognizable in the marketplace.

Pringles apparently doesn’t give a ****. Or they know Walmart has better lawyers.

 

[Cantdoitsal]

Pringles apparently doesn’t give a ****. Or they know Walmart has better lawyers.

Good one.

 

[Dawgbite]

Pringles apparently doesn’t give a ****. Or they know Walmart has better lawyers.

I wouldn’t doubt that Pringles isn’t actually making those chips.

 

[Boom Boom]

I wouldn’t doubt that Pringles isn’t actually making those chips.

Or that Walmart told them to get over it or they won't sell actual Pringles in their stores anymore. Pringles would literally lose half their sales overnight. WM is the big dog in grocery retail, they set the rules and all their suppliers have to take it. Most of them are just happy if they're not selling to WM at a loss. Incredibly, some do.

More likely, WM didn't have to say a thing. All their suppliers know what's up.

 

[Dawgbite]

I’ve been in three patent lawsuits and one trade dress suit. My attorney told me multiple times that it’s not about right and wrong. It’s all about who has the most money and time to throw at the issue.

 

[horshack.sixpack]

I’ve been in three patent lawsuits and one trade dress suit. My attorney told me multiple times that it’s not about right and wrong. It’s all about who has the most money and time to throw at the issue.

This accurately describes how our civil and criminal legal systems work.

 

[Car Ramrod.sixpack]

I’ve been in three patent lawsuits and one trade dress suit. My attorney told me multiple times that it’s not about right and wrong. It’s all about who has the most money and time to throw at the issue.

This is absolutely correct. My engineering firm does expert witness consulting from time to time and when it comes to lawsuits a lot of times it boils down to who has the deeper pockets.

Just keep in mind the law doesn't have to make sense and is rarely fair. Also an attorney will tell you anything you want hear as long as you keep writing checks.