The Final (?) Word: “Bad Spaniels” Stands

In the world of trademark law, few disputes have logged as many miles or generated as much legal debate as the epic saga between liquor titan Jack Daniel’s and novelty toy maker VIP Products.

Three years ago, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in to clarify how parody interacts with trademark infringement, sending the case back down to a district court. There, Jack Daniel’s was granted a permanent injunction on the grounds that associating a beverage with dog feces inherently tarnished the famous brand.

However, VIP Products appealed, and in an August 2026 decision, the Ninth Circuit vacated that injunction. Why? They ruled that Jack Daniel’s failed to prove that the squeaky dog toy diluted or tarnished the famous whiskey brand’s reputation.

After 12 years, this may actually be the final word in VIP Products LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. Perhaps more importantly, the ruling provides a crucial post-Supreme Court roadmap for brand owners, clarifying the exceptionally high evidentiary bar required to prove “dilution by tarnishment” against commercial parodies.

How did we get here?

The Long Road (Back) to the Ninth Circuit

This feud began way back in 2014, when VIP Products introduced “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker.” It is a dog toy shaped like a black, square-jawed liquor bottle that features a cartoon dog. The toy substitutes “Jack Daniel’s” with “Bad Spaniels,” “Old No. 7” with “Old No. 2,” and “40% alc. by vol.” with “43% poo by vol.”

Jack Daniel’s sued for trademark infringement and dilution by tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA).

In 2023, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court. There, the justices unanimously held that VIP Products could not hide behind automatic First Amendment protection (the Rogers test) or statutory “noncommercial use” exclusions simply because the toy was a parody. Their reasoning? Because VIP was using the altered marks directly as source identifiers for its own commercial product.

As we touched on above, the Supreme Court sent the case back down to evaluate ordinary consumer confusion and dilution claims. On remand, the district court ruled that consumers were not actually confused by the parody (defeating the infringement claim), but granted Jack Daniel’s a permanent injunction on the grounds that associating a beverage with dog feces inherently tarnished the famous brand.

This led to VIP Products’ appeal, and the Ninth Circuit’s ultimate reversal of that decision.

Why the Ninth Circuit Reversed the Injunction

In their reversal, the Ninth Circuit held that Jack Daniel’s fell short on two core requirements of federal dilution law: mark-specific fame and actual proof of reputational harm.

1. Fame Cannot Be Borrowed Across Marks

Under the TDRA, a plaintiff claiming dilution must prove that each specific asserted mark is independently famous among the general consuming public.

The Ninth Circuit held that the district court erroneously bundled all of Jack Daniel’s branding together. While the name “Jack Daniel’s” and its iconic square bottle trade dress are undoubtedly famous, Jack Daniel’s failed to present independent evidence establishing that the phrase “Old No. 7” or its label’s alcohol-by-volume statement were famous in their own right. As the court noted, one mark cannot simply borrow the fame of another.

2. Parody Still Matters in Tarnishment Claims

More significantly, the appellate court ruled that Jack Daniel’s failed to prove that the dog toy was likely to cause actual reputational injury.

Jack Daniel’s had relied heavily on expert testimony, arguing that associating a human beverage with dog waste creates an immediate, subconscious disgust response in consumers. However, the Ninth Circuit rejected this argument as “pure conjecture,” pointing out that the expert failed to test the Bad Spaniels toy itself or account for its obvious parodic nature.

The panel emphasized that even when a parody cannot claim a statutory exclusion from liability, its expressive, humorous character remains highly relevant to the factual question of tarnishment. Because consumers immediately recognize a parodic dog toy as a joke (rather than a genuine representation of the underlying brand) they do not transfer the toy’s crude humor onto the whiskey itself.

Essential Takeaways for Brand Owners and Product Developers

The Ninth Circuit’s decision establishes vital principles for companies navigating brand protection and creative parody:

Dilution Requires Mark-Specific Proof. You cannot rely on overall corporate brand strength to support a dilution claim for sub-brands or individual label elements. If your business asserts dilution claims, you must produce clear, mark-specific evidence showing that each individual logo, phrase, or trade dress element holds independent fame in the public eye.

Offensive Association Is Not Automatic Tarnishment. A commercial parody can be irreverent, crude, or tasteless without crossing the legal threshold into actionable tarnishment. To win a tarnishment claim, brand owners must present concrete evidence or tailored consumer studies proving that the public actually thinks less of the original brand due to the parody.

Parody Plays a Dual Role in Litigation. Following the Supreme Court and Ninth Circuit rulings, here’s where commercial parody seems to stand, legally speaking: While parody does not give you an automatic pass to avoid a lawsuit, it remains a potent defense when proving whether real-world consumers are actually confused or disgusted.

Ultimately, the Bad Spaniels saga serves as an enduring reminder: Protecting a famous brand requires rigorous, mark-specific evidence, because in the eyes of the law, not every commercial joke constitutes legal injury.

Crystal Broughan originally wrote about this case nearly four years ago: Case about a Jack Daniel’s Parody Toy May Set New National Standards