May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.; The New York Times, December 5, 2022

 Adam Liptak, The New York Times; May ‘Bad Spaniels’ Mock Jack Daniel’s? The Supreme Court Will Decide.

"The justices agreed last month to decide the fate of the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker dog toy, which looks a lot like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s but with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”

The jokes are scatological. The words “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are replaced on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 percent alcohol by volume, Bad Spaniels’s is said to be “43 percent poo.”

A tag attached to the toy says it is “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

Trademark cases generally turn on whether the public is likely to be confused about a product’s source. In the Bad Spaniels case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, said the First Amendment requires a more demanding test when the challenged product is expressing an idea or point of view."

An Uphill Battle; American Libraries, May 2, 2022

Austin Persinger , American Libraries; An Uphill Battle

"The complaint bothered me, so I entered the conversation to talk about the concept of the Library of Things—that our institutions can loan so much more than books—and how Summers County Public Library could help. I began soliciting donations on various Facebook pages and through the local newspaper for a fleet of lightweight, collapsible utility wagons that cost about $100 each. Project Buggy Buddy had a fundraising goal of $1,200; community response to the idea was enthusiastic, and we raised $2,000. We began checking out six wagons within a month and have six more on order.

The wagons in our fleet are designed to go over rough surfaces, and a five-day checkout period removes pressure to return them immediately after a trip. We don’t charge fines if wagons are returned late—though, in the first four months of lending, all of them have been returned on time—and we allow renewals if needed. The program has been successful: It is popular among users, is eliminating the guilt and fear of harassment for taking buggies, and has engendered goodwill and renewed interest in the library.

People tell us they are grateful we are assisting them in a real way. One patron said that using the wagon allows them to buy items in bulk, which has helped them save money on groceries.

We have myriad needs and problems here in Appalachia. Lack of transportation may not be the biggest, flashiest, or first problem one thinks of, but it causes an undue burden in our communities. Our crowdsourced fleet is a Band-Aid on the issue—our way of alleviating the problem in a small but helpful way. Solving the rural infrastructure problem may be too big and complex for me and my library, but I am happy to get the wagon rolling."

Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory; The Washington Post, August 1, 2018

Antonia Farzan, The Washington Post; Honey Badger may not care, but the ‘creative genius’ who took him viral just won a big victory

"In June 2015, Gordon filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted summary judgment to the greeting card company, saying that the cards were expressive works protected by the First Amendment. Gordon appealed.

On Monday, the appeals court reversed the lower court’s decision, allowing his lawsuit to continue.

In an opinion published Monday, the three-judge panel said that Gordon’s lawsuit against Drape Creative, Inc. and Papyrus-Recycled Greetings, Inc. presents a question that should be tried before a jury: Did the greeting cards add any artistic value that would be protected by the First Amendment, or did they simply appropriate the goodwill associated with Gordon’s trademark?"

Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High; New York Times, June 19, 2017

Ken Belson, New York Times; Criticized Team Names Get a Legal Lift, but the Price Could Be High

"After years of mounting disapproval involving one of the N.F.L.’s most established and lucrative brands, the Redskins cheered the ruling, which the team most likely will use to seek the restoration of trademark protections the government took away in 2014 on the grounds the nickname was offensive.

“I am THRILLED!” the team’s owner, Dan Snyder, said in a statement. “Hail to the Redskins.”...

Still, while those who have resisted name changes might see a symbolic lift from the court, they will have to weigh whether keeping their names hurts their image or even their bottom line.

“What the Supreme Court has said is you don’t have to change your name if you don’t want to, because you can protect it with a federally protected trademark,” said Josh Schiller, a lawyer at Boies Schiller Flexner in New York who specializes in sports and media law. “But culturally, it is important to consider whether the name still offends people, and whether it will build good will around the mark.”"