Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.
The Supreme Court addressed whether the Rogers test applies when a trademark is used as a source identifier for the infringer's own goods. The Court found that the Rogers test does not apply in such cases, and the focus should be on the likelihood of confusion. The case was remanded for further proceedings on this issue.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC.
The Court held that the Rogers test does not apply when a trademark is used as a designation of source for the infringer's own goods.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Free Speech is relevant to Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
The case involves the application of the Rogers test, which is designed to protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)VIP argued that Jack Daniel's infringement claim failed under the so-called Rogers test—a threshold test developed by the Second Circuit and designed to protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context.
-
Why Judicial Review is relevant to Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC
The Court engages in judicial review to determine the applicability of the Rogers test and the Lanham Act's exclusions.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)Held: 1. When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer's own goods, the Rogers test does not apply.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC that support the summary and concepts above.
When an alleged infringer uses a trademark as a designation of source for the infringer's own goods, the Rogers test does not apply.
The Ninth Circuit's expansive view of the noncommercial use exclusion—that parody is always exempt, regardless whether it designates source—effectively nullifes Congress's express limit on the fair-use exclusion for parody.
