VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc. Archives

In the doghouse? Tarnishment requires proof of reputational harm

by Lauren Hong | Aug 13, 2026 | Trademarks

In the latest chapter of a long-running dispute, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated a permanent injunction against VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, finding that Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., (JDPI) failed to establish that the parody was likely to harm the reputation of its famous marks. The Court also explained that although parody does not automatically escape dilution liability when used as a source identifier, a product’s parodic nature remains relevant to whether consumers are likely to form a damaging association with the famous mark. VIP Products LLC ⁠v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. 25-2027 (9th Cir. August 4, 2026) (Berzon, Smith, Hurwitz, JJ.)

VIP Products sells a line of dog toys parodying well-known alcohol bottles. Its Bad Spaniels toy mimics the appearance of a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle but replaces “Jack Daniel’s” with “Bad Spaniels,” “Old No. 7” with “Old No. 2,” and “Tennessee Whiskey” with “Tennessee Carpet,” along with references to dog waste.

JDPI sued VIP for trademark infringement and dilution. The dispute ultimately reached the US Supreme Court, which in 2023 held that VIP could not invoke the Trademark Dilution Revision Act’s statutory parody exclusion because VIP used the challenged designations as source identifiers for its own goods.

On remand, the district court found no likelihood of confusion but concluded that Bad Spaniels diluted JDPI’s trademarks by tarnishment and entered a permanent injunction. VIP appealed.

The Ninth Circuit explained that a dilution-by-tarnishment claim requires the trademark owner to establish, among other things, that the asserted mark is famous and that the challenged use creates an association likely to harm the famous mark’s reputation. The Court emphasized that the analysis must be conducted on a mark-by-mark basis. Fame established for one mark cannot automatically be attributed to related marks.

Applying that framework, the Ninth Circuit found that JDPI had established fame for the Jack Daniel’s word mark and registered trade dress, but not for certain other asserted marks, including “Old No. 7.” That distinction was significant because some of Bad Spaniels’ more overt scatological references corresponded to marks that JDPI had not independently shown to be famous.

The Ninth Circuit also found JDPI’s evidence of likely reputational harm insufficient. JDPI’s expert relied on general consumer psychology research suggesting that associations between food or beverages and defecation may produce disgust, but he did not conduct a study examining consumer reactions to Bad Spaniels itself. The Court concluded that such generalized evidence did not establish that consumers would transfer negative associations from the parody dog toy to JDPI’s famous marks.

The Ninth Circuit further faulted the tarnishment analysis for failing to account for the toy’s parodic character. Although parody is not categorically exempt from dilution liability when the challenged use itself functions as a trademark, the Court explained that parody remains relevant to whether consumers are likely to make an association that harms the famous mark’s reputation. Because Bad Spaniels unmistakably mocked Jack Daniel’s, as opposed to presenting itself as Jack Daniel’s, the Court [...]

Continue Reading

Dog Toy Maker in the Doghouse (Again) for Tarnishing Jack Daniel’s Marks

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Feb 6, 2025 | Trademarks

Addressing this case for the third time, the US District Court for the District of Arizona found on remand that Jack Daniel’s was entitled to a permanent injunction after finding that VIP Products’ “Bad Spaniels” dog toy diluted Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress, despite VIP not having infringed those marks. VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties Inc., Case No. CV-14-02057-PHX-SMM (D. Ariz. Jan. 21, 2025).

This case began more than 10 years ago when VIP filed a declaratory judgment action that its “Bad Spaniels” Silly Squeaker dog toy did not infringe or dilute Jack Daniel’s trademark rights. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed, alleging trademark infringement and dilution. The district court initially entered a permanent injunction against VIP, finding that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” toy violated and tarnished Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress. VIP appealed, and the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found that VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” was protected expressive speech under the First Amendment. On remand, the district court granted summary judgment to VIP on infringement and dilution. Jack Daniel’s appealed, but the Ninth Circuit affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

The Supreme Court granted certiorari and held that the heightened protection afforded by the First Amendment does not apply where the contested mark is used as a trademark. The Supreme Court therefore vacated the Ninth Circuit’s decision and remanded for further consideration. The Ninth Circuit remanded the case to the district court to determine whether VIP’s use of “Bad Spaniels” tarnished and/or infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks and trade dress, consistent with the Supreme Court’s decision.

On remand, VIP attempted to challenge the constitutionality of the Lanham Act’s cause of action for dilution by tarnishment, arguing that “the statute amounts to unconstitutional viewpoint discrimination by enjoining the use of a mark that ‘harms the reputation’ of a famous mark.” Ultimately, the district court did not consider the merits of the constitutional challenge. The district court stated that although it was not precluded from considering VIP’s constitutional challenge, the issue was not properly before the court because VIP had not amended its pleadings to assert the challenge.

The district court assessed dilution by tarnishment using a three-factor analysis of fame, similarity, and reputational harm. With respect to fame, the parties did not dispute that the JACK DANIEL’S mark was famous. Nonetheless, VIP contended that Jack Daniel’s had not shown tarnishment of a famous mark by a “correlative junior mark.” Specifically, VIP argued that the famous JACK DANIEL’S mark correlated with VIP’s “Bad Spaniels,” and VIP’s use of “Old. No. 2” correlated with Jack Daniel’s mark “Old No. 7.” According to VIP, there could be no tarnishment because only the latter was offensive and Jack Daniel’s had not demonstrated that “Old. No. 7” was a famous mark. The district court disagreed with VIP’s correlative mark argument, stating, “it is VIP’s use of Jack Daniel’s marks – on a poop-themed dog chew toy – that Jack Daniel’s claims tarnish its trademarks, not ‘Bad Spaniels’ itself [...]

Continue Reading

Hair of the Dog? Squeaker Toy Is Expressive Work

by Eleanor B. Atkins | Apr 15, 2020 | Trademarks

Addressing whether a dog toy meant to humorously evoke a bottle of whiskey was entitled to First Amendment protection, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the toy was a protectable expressive work. The Ninth Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s finding of trademark infringement, reversed the judgment on dilution, and upheld the validity of the whiskey proprietor’s trademark and trade dress rights. VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., Case No. 18-16012 (9th Cir. Mar. 31, 2020) (Hurwitz, J.).

(more…)