Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, 599 U.S. 140

VIP Products sells a chewable dog toy, “Bad Spaniels,” that mimics Jack Daniel’s bottle and label with parodic text (e.g., “Bad Spaniels,” “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet”).
VIP marketed Bad Spaniels as part of its Silly Squeakers line, used the Bad Spaniels mark/trade dress as a source identifier, and sometimes registered other parody product names.
Jack Daniel’s sued for trademark infringement (likelihood of confusion) and dilution by tarnishment; VIP sought declaratory relief that the toy is a protected parody and noncommercial use.
District Court found VIP used the marks as source identifiers, found likelihood of confusion and tarnishment, and ruled for Jack Daniel’s; the Ninth Circuit reversed, applying the Rogers threshold test to bar the infringement claim and treating the parody as noncommercial for dilution.
The Supreme Court vacated and remanded: it held Rogers does not apply when the defendant uses another’s mark as a designation of source, and that the noncommercial exclusion does not protect source-identifying parody from dilution claims; remanded for application of likelihood-of-confusion analysis (with parody as a relevant factor).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Rogers threshold (First Amendment) test applies to an infringement claim when the defendant’s use has expressive/parodic content	Rogers should not apply because VIP used Jack Daniel’s elements as trademarks to identify its own product; normal Lanham Act likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs	Rogers applies because Bad Spaniels is an expressive/parodic work, so a threshold test should bar liability unless artistic relevance is absent or the use explicitly misleads	Rogers does not apply when the defendant uses the mark as a designation of source; ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis governs (parody remains relevant as a factor)
Whether the Lanham Act’s §1125(c)(3)(C) noncommercial-use exclusion shields a parody sold as a product from dilution by tarnishment	Noncommercial exclusion does not apply to source-identifying parodies; statutory fair-use carve-out bars protection when mark is used as a designation of source	Parody/commentary is noncommercial and thus exempt from dilution liability even when used to sell a product	The noncommercial exclusion does not shield parody that functions as a source identifier; the fair-use exclusion’s carve-out controls (no protection if used as a designation of source)

Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) (artistic-title threshold test for expressive works)
Harley-Davidson, Inc. v. Grottanelli, 164 F.3d 806 (2d Cir. 1999) (use as a source identifier not protected by Rogers)
Tommy Hilfiger Licensing, Inc. v. Nature Labs, LLC, 221 F. Supp. 2d 410 (S.D.N.Y. 2002) (parodic product names treated under ordinary likelihood-of-confusion analysis when used as marks)
Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) (parody can inform likelihood-of-confusion analysis)
Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569 (1994) (parody principles relevant to fair-use analysis)
Moseley v. V Secret Catalogue, Inc., 537 U.S. 418 (2003) (framework for dilution claims)
Qualitex Co. v. Jacobson Prods. Co., 514 U.S. 159 (1995) (trademark primary function: identifying source)