Background

On Tuesday, a three‑judge panel of the San Francisco‑based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reversed an earlier Arizona district court decision that had found VIP Products’ dog toy “Bad Spaniels” to dilute the trademarks of the Lynchburg, Tennessee‑based whiskey maker Jack Daniel’s. The case, which began in 2014 when VIP Products received a cease‑and‑desist letter from Jack Daniel’s, has now stretched over twelve years and previously reached the U.S. Supreme Court.

Prior Proceedings

The Arizona judge originally ruled that the toy infringed and diluted Jack Daniel’s marks, issuing a permanent ban on its sale. That decision was itself a reversal of a 2020 9th Circuit ruling that had dismissed the claim on free‑speech grounds. In 2023, the Supreme Court revived the dispute, concluding that VIP used the trademark to identify the source of its own product in a manner not protected by the First Amendment.

Current Decision

U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee had, in the prior year, reaffirmed the dilution finding and maintained the sales ban. The 9th Circuit panel, however, found that “Bad Spaniels” is a parodic dog toy not intended for human consumption and that there is no evidence in the record that the scatological references on a dog toy would generate the same likelihood of disgust as identical references on a consumable product meant for humans. Consequently, the panel lifted the permanent ban, stating the toy would not damage Jack Daniel’s reputation.

Product Details

The toy mimics the shape of a Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle but replaces the iconic “Old No. 7” label with the phrase “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee Carpet.” It also substitutes the usual alcohol descriptors with “43% Poo By Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

Legal Timeline

  • 2014: VIP Products files suit after receiving cease‑and‑desist letter.
  • 2020: 9th Circuit initially reverses Arizona decision on free‑speech grounds.
  • 2023: U.S. Supreme Court revives the case, focusing on source‑identification use of the trademark.
  • 2025 (approx.): U.S. District Judge Stephen McNamee rules the toy dilutes the trademark and imposes a permanent sales ban.
  • 2026‑08‑05: 9th Circuit panel overturns the ban, concluding the toy is a permissible parody.