Potty humor at whiskey legend’s expense gives high court a chuckle

 I am sure I did a thread on this story a while back, so consider this an update. 


Arguments over a waggish dog toy had some justices questioning their sense of humor. 




WASHINGTON (CN) — The normally sedate Supreme Court broke into fits of laughter on Wednesday while reviewing a toymaker’s spoof on Jack Daniel's Tennessee Whiskey. 

Advertised as “The Old No.2 on your Tennessee carpet,” Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy advertises “43% Poo by Vol.” and that it is “100% Smelly.” For Jack Daniel's, even the whiff of association to its Old No. 7 Brand was enough to begin litigation that landed on the high court steps this morning.

It appeared likely the court might decide the case on narrow grounds, but Justice Neil Gorsuch seemed to endorse another option. The Trump appointee said the Rogers test wasn’t ideal because it forced judges to evaluate art. 

“Judges make for pretty lousy art critics,” Gorsuch said. 

The suit originated in 2014 when Jack Daniel’s attempted to force VIP to remove all Bad Spaniels toys from the market. Leaning on protections for speech under parody, VIP requested a declaratory judgment that its toy did not infringe on trademark rights. 

Ruling in favor of Jack Daniel’s, a federal judge said the toy should not be protected by the First Amendment because it is sold as a commercial product. A unanimous panel on the Ninth Circuit reversed, sending the case back to the district court where VIP's First Amendment protections prevailed. The Ninth Circuit affirmed on appeal, sending the case to the justices. 

https://www.courthousenews.com/potty-humor-at-whiskey-legends-expense-gives-high-court-a-chuckle/




Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

That Uplifting Tweet You Just Shared? A Russian Troll Sent It

Image
Here’s what Russia’s 2020 disinformation operations look like, according to two experts on social media and propaganda. By   DARREN LINVILL   &   PATRICK WARREN Internet trolls don’t troll. Not the professionals at least. Professional trolls don’t go on social media to antagonize liberals or belittle conservatives. They are not narrow minded, drunk or angry. They don’t lack basic English language skills. They certainly aren’t  “somebody sitting on their bed that weighs 400 pounds,”  as the president once put it. Your stereotypical trolls do exist on social media, but the amateurs aren’t a threat to Western democracy. Professional trolls, on the other hand, are the tip of the spear in the new digital, ideological battleground. To combat the threat they pose, we must first understand them — and take them seriously. MORE: https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-features/russia-troll-2020-election-interference-twitter-916482/ Posted by Jamie B.
Read more

The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term

Image
The Nightmare Scenario That Keeps Election Lawyers Up At Night -- And Could Hand Trump A Second Term   (Photo: Photos: Getty Images) Americans will almost certainly go to bed on Nov. 3 without knowing who won the presidential election. Since millions of people will vote by mail, constraints on time and resources will slow ballot counting into potentially a weeks-long process. Voting patterns suggest it’s likely that President  Donald Trump  could end Election Day in the lead in certain key states, only to be overtaken by Democratic opponent  Joe Biden  when more votes are tallied.  This could create a nightmare scenario during the three months stretching from Election Day to the Jan. 20 inauguration: a battle on the state and congressional level over who is the legitimate winner. This could include Congress reconvening on Jan. 6, presided over by Vice President  Mike Pence , with no consensus over its potential role in choosing the next president. This is arguably the most likely of th
Read more

Philosophical Question #14 – Lifestyle Choices

Image
Here is an interesting question in my list of philosophical questions: 1.) Should governments have penalties for those who live unhealthy lifestyles? A list of unhealthy lifestyles would include things like smoking, drinking, illegal drugs, prostitution, and other “vice” type activities. I guess the “government penalties” would be referring to monetary punishments, withholding medical treatments (insurance companies would love that), possibly imposing/regulating very high (exorbitant) prices on things considered unhealthy in order to cut down on their use, and other possibilities. 2.) Or, would you say that living an unhealthy lifestyle, likely resulting in a LOT of eventual personal pain and suffering, should be punishment enough for unhealthy lifestyles? When people make bad choices in life, often in their youth where ignorance and immediate gratification takes them over,  3.) Should a society be obligated to help "fix" them, by way of tax money?   Is that part of
Read more