Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16012/USCOURTS-ca9-18-16012-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 840
Nature of Suit: Trademark
Cause of Action: 

---

FOR PUBLICATION

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

VIP PRODUCTS LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company,

Plaintiff-Counter-DefendantAppellant,

v.

JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC., a 

Delaware corporation,

Defendant-Counter-PlaintiffAppellee.

No. 18-16012

D.C. No.

2:14-cv-02057-

SMM

OPINION

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the District of Arizona

Stephen M. McNamee, District Judge, Presiding

Argued and Submitted February 7, 2020

Arizona State University, Phoenix

Filed March 31, 2020

Before: A. Wallace Tashima, Andrew D. Hurwitz,

and Eric D. Miller, Circuit Judges.

Opinion by Judge Hurwitz

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 1 of 13
2 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

SUMMARY*

Trademark

The panel affirmed in part, vacated in part, and reversed 

in part the district court’s judgment after a bench trial and 

permanent injunction in favor of Jack Daniel’s Properties, 

Inc., in a trademark suit brought by VIP Products, LLC, 

concerning VIP’s “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” dog toy, 

which resembled a bottle of Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Black 

Label Tennessee Whiskey but had light-hearted, dog-related 

alterations.

The panel affirmed the district court’s summary 

judgment in favor of Jack Daniel’s on the issues of aesthetic 

functionality and distinctiveness. The panel held that the 

district court correctly found that Jack Daniel’s trade dress 

and bottle design were distinctive and aesthetically 

nonfunctional, and thus entitled to trademark protection. 

Accordingly, the district court correctly rejected VIP’s 

request for cancellation of Jack Daniel’s registered 

trademark. The district court also correctly rejected VIP’s 

nominative fair use defense because, although the Bad 

Spaniels toy resembled Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle 

design, there were significant differences between them, 

most notably the image of a spaniel and the phrases on the 

Bad Spaniels label.

Vacating the district court’s judgment on trademark 

infringement, the panel concluded that the Bad Spaniels dog 

toy was an expressive work entitled to First Amendment 

* This summary constitutes no part of the opinion of the court. It 

has been prepared by court staff for the convenience of the reader.

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 2 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 3

protection. Accordingly, the district court erred in finding 

trademark infringement without first requiring Jack Daniel’s 

to satisfy at least one of the two prongs of the Rogers test, 

which requires a plaintiff to show that the defendant’s use of 

a mark is either (1) not artistically relevant to the underlying 

work or (2) explicitly misleads consumers as to the source or 

content of the work.

The panel reversed the district court’s judgment on 

claims of trademark dilution by tarnishment. Although VIP 

used Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design to sell Bad 

Spaniels, they were also used to convey a humorous 

message, which was protected by the First Amendment. VIP 

therefore was entitled to judgment in its favor on the federal 

and state law dilution claims.

In summary, the panel affirmed the district court’s 

summary judgment in favor of Jack Daniel’s on the issues of 

aesthetic functionality and distinctiveness, affirmed the 

judgment as to the validity of Jack Daniel’s registered mark, 

reversed the judgment on the issue of dilution, vacated the 

judgment after trial on the issue of infringement, and 

remanded for further proceedings. The panel also vacated 

the permanent injunction prohibiting VIP from 

manufacturing and selling the Bad Spaniels dog toy.

COUNSEL

David G. Bray (argued), David N. Ferrucci, and Holly M. 

Zoe, Dickinson Wright PLLC, Phoenix, Arizona, for 

Plaintiff-Counter-Defendant-Appellant.

D. Peter Harvey (argued), Harvey & Company, San 

Francisco, California; Isaac S. Crum, Rusing Lopez & 

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 3 of 13
4 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

Lizardi PLLC, Tucson, Arizona; for Defendant-CounterPlaintiff-Appellee.

OPINION

HURWITZ, Circuit Judge:

VIP Products sells the “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” 

dog toy, which resembles a bottle of Jack Daniel’s Old No. 

7 Black Label Tennessee Whiskey, but has light-hearted, 

dog-related alterations. For example, the name “Jack 

Daniel’s” is replaced with “Bad Spaniels,” “Old No. 7” with 

“Old No. 2,” and alcohol content descriptions with 

“43% POO BY VOL.” and “100% SMELLY.” After Jack 

Daniel’s Properties, Inc. (“JDPI”) demanded that VIP cease 

selling the toy, VIP filed this action, seeking a declaration 

that the toy did not infringe JDPI’s trademark rights or, in 

the alternative, that Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle 

design were not entitled to trademark protection. JDPI 

counterclaimed, asserting trademark infringement and 

dilution. After ruling on cross-motions for summary 

judgment and conducting a four-day bench trial, the district 

court found in favor of JDPI and issued a permanent 

injunction enjoining VIP from manufacturing and selling the 

Bad Spaniels toy.

We affirm the district court’s summary judgment in 

favor of JDPI on the issues of aesthetic functionality and 

distinctiveness. However, because the Bad Spaniels dog toy 

is an expressive work entitled to First Amendment 

protection, we reverse the district court’s judgment on the 

dilution claim, vacate the judgment on trademark 

infringement, and remand for further proceedings.

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 4 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 5

I

A. Factual Background

VIP designs, markets, and sells “Silly Squeakers,” 

rubber dog toys that resemble the bottles of various wellknown beverages, but with dog-related twists. One Silly 

Squeaker, for example, resembles a Mountain Dew bottle, 

but is labeled “Mountain Drool.” VIP’s purported goal in 

creating Silly Squeakers was to “reflect” “on the 

humanization of the dog in our lives,” and to comment on 

“corporations [that] take themselves very seriously.” Over a 

million Silly Squeakers were sold from 2007 to 2017.

In July of 2013, VIP introduced the Bad Spaniels 

squeaker toy. The toy is roughly in the shape of a Jack 

Daniel’s bottle and has an image of a spaniel over the words 

“Bad Spaniels.” The Jack Daniel’s label says, “Old No. 7 

Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey;” the label on the Bad 

Spaniels toy instead has the phrase “the Old No. 2, on your 

Tennessee Carpet.” A tag affixed to the Bad Spaniels toy 

states that the “product is not affiliated with Jack Daniel 

Distillery.”

B. Procedural History

In 2014, JDPI “demand[ed] that VIP cease all further 

sales of the Bad Spaniels toy.” VIP responded by filing this 

action, seeking a declaration that the Bad Spaniels toy “does 

not infringe or dilute any claimed trademark rights” of JDPI 

and that Jack Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design are not 

entitled to trademark protection. The complaint also sought 

cancellation of the Patent and Trademark Office registration 

for Jack Daniel’s bottle design. JDPI counterclaimed, 

alleging state and federal claims for infringement of JDPI’s 

trademarks and trade dress, see 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114(1), 

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 5 of 13
6 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

1125(a)(1); A.R.S. §§ 44-1451, et seq., and dilution by 

tarnishment of the trademarks and trade dress, see 15 U.S.C. 

§ 1125(c); A.R.S. § 44-1448.01.

VIP moved for summary judgment, and JDPI crossmoved for partial summary judgment. The district court

denied VIP’s motion and granted JDPI’s. The district court 

held that VIP was not entitled to the defenses of nominative 

and First Amendment fair use. The district court rejected the 

nominative fair use defense because VIP “did not use JDPI’s 

identical marks or trade dress in its Bad Spaniels toy.” The 

district court rejected JDPI’s First Amendment defense 

because the trade dress and bottle design were used “to 

promote a somewhat non-expressive, commercial product.”

The district court also found as a matter of law that Jack 

Daniel’s trade dress and bottle design were distinctive, nongeneric, and nonfunctional, and therefore entitled to 

trademark protection. This left for trial only JDPI’s dilution 

by tarnishment claims and whether JDPI could establish the 

likelihood of confusion for trademark infringement. See

Kendall-Jackson Winery, Ltd. v. E. & J. Gallo Winery, 

150 F.3d 1042, 1046–47 (9th Cir. 1998) (“To state an 

infringement claim . . . a plaintiff must meet three basic 

elements: (1) distinctiveness, (2) nonfunctionality, and 

(3) likelihood of confusion.”).

After a four-day bench trial, the district court found that 

JDPI had established dilution by tarnishment and 

infringement of JDPI’s trademarks and trade dress. The 

court permanently enjoined VIP “from sourcing, 

manufacturing, advertising, promoting, displaying, 

shipping, importing, offering for sale, selling or distributing 

the Bad Spaniels dog toy.”

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 6 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 7

II

We have jurisdiction of VIP’s appeal under 28 U.S.C. 

§ 1291. We review the grant of summary judgment and the 

district court’s conclusions of law following a bench trial de 

novo. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 

1150 (9th Cir. 2016); Dolman v. Agee, 157 F.3d 708, 711 

(9th Cir. 1998). The “district court’s findings of fact 

following a bench trial are reviewed for clear error.” Id. at 

711.

A. Aesthetic Functionality and Distinctiveness

To obtain trademark protection, a product’s trade dress 

or design must be nonfunctional and distinctive. See WalMart Stores, Inc. v. Samara Bros., Inc., 529 U.S. 205, 210 

(2000); Talking Rain Beverage Co., Inc. v. S. Beach 

Beverage Co., 349 F.3d 601, 603 (9th Cir. 2003). “[T]he 

proper inquiry is not whether individual features of a product 

are functional or nondistinctive but whether the whole 

collection of features taken together are functional or 

nondistinctive.” Kendall-Jackson Winery, 150 F.3d at 1050.

The district court correctly found Jack Daniel’s trade 

dress and bottle design are distinctive and aesthetically 

nonfunctional. Although whiskey companies use many of 

the individual elements employed by JDPI on their bottles, 

the Jack Daniel’s trade dress “is a combination [of] bottle 

and label elements,” including “the Jack Daniel’s and Old 

No. 7 word marks,” and the district court correctly found that 

these elements taken together are both nonfunctional and 

distinctive. See Tie Tech, Inc. v. Kinedyne Corp., 296 F.3d 

778, 785 (9th Cir. 2002) (stating that “‘an assurance that a 

particular entity made, sponsored, or endorsed a product,’ 

. . . if incorporated into the product’s design by virtue of 

arbitrary embellishment” is not functional (quoting Vuitton 

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 7 of 13
8 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

et Fils S.A. v. J. Young Enters., Inc., 644 F.2d 769, 774 (9th 

Cir. 1981))).

VIP also failed to rebut the presumption of 

nonfunctionality and distinctiveness of the Jack Daniel’s 

bottle design, which is covered by Trademark Registration 

No. 4,106,178. See Tie Tech, 296 F.3d at 783 (“[T]he 

plaintiff in an infringement action with a registered mark is 

given the prima facie or presumptive advantage on the issue 

of validity, thus shifting the burden of production to the 

defendant to prove otherwise.”). None of the evidence cited 

by VIP demonstrates that, “taken together,” the elements of 

the bottle design registration—including “an embossed 

signature design comprised of the word ‘JACK 

DANIEL’”—are functional or nondistinctive. The district 

court therefore correctly rejected VIP’s request for 

cancellation of the registered mark.

B. Nominative Fair Use Defense

The district court also correctly rejected VIP’s 

nominative fair use defense. Although the Bad Spaniels toy 

resembles JDPI’s trade dress and bottle design, there are 

significant differences between them, most notably the 

image of a spaniel and the phrases on the Bad Spaniels label. 

These differences preclude a finding of nominative fair use. 

See Playboy Enters., Inc. v. Welles, 279 F.3d 796, 801 (9th 

Cir. 2002); E.S.S. Entm’t 2000, Inc. v. Rock Star Videos, Inc., 

547 F.3d 1095, 1099 (9th Cir. 2008) (finding nominative fair 

use defense did not apply where mark was “not identical to 

the plaintiff’s” mark).

C. First Amendment Defense

“In general, claims of trademark infringement under the 

Lanham Act are governed by a likelihood-of-confusion test,” 

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 8 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 9

Twentieth Century Fox Television v. Empire Distribution, 

Inc., 875 F.3d 1192, 1196 (9th Cir. 2017), which seeks to 

strike the appropriate balance between the First Amendment 

and trademark rights, see Gordon v. Drape Creative, Inc., 

909 F.3d 257, 264 (9th Cir. 2018). The likelihood-ofconfusion test requires that the plaintiff have “a valid, 

protectable trademark” and defendant’s “use of the mark is 

likely to cause confusion.” S. Cal. Darts Ass’n v. Zaffina, 

762 F.3d 921, 929 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Applied Info. 

Scis. Corp. v. eBAY, Inc., 511 F.3d 966, 969 (9th Cir. 2007)).

When “artistic expression is at issue,” however, the 

general likelihood-of-confusion test “fails to account for the 

full weight of the public’s interest in free expression.” 

Gordon, 909 F.3d at 264 (quoting Mattel, Inc. v. MCA 

Records, 296 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2002)). Accordingly, 

we have held that the Lanham Act only applies to expressive 

works if the plaintiff establishes one of the two requirements 

in the test set forth in Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d 

Cir. 1989). See MCA Records, 296 F.3d at 902 (adopting 

Rogers test for use of a trademark in the title of an expressive 

work); see also Gordon, 909 F.3d at 267 (noting that after 

MCA Records, this Court “extended the Rogers test beyond 

a title”). Rogers requires the plaintiff to show that the 

defendant’s use of the mark is either (1) “not artistically 

relevant to the underlying work” or (2) “explicitly misleads 

consumers as to the source or content of the work.” Gordon, 

909 F.3d at 265.

In determining whether a work is expressive, we analyze 

whether the work is “communicating ideas or expressing 

points of view.” MCA Records, 296 F.3d at 900 (quoting 

L.L. Bean, Inc. v. Drake Publishers, Inc., 811 F.2d 26, 29 

(1st Cir. 1987)). A work need not be the “expressive equal 

of Anna Karenina or Citizen Kane” to satisfy this

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 9 of 13
10 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

requirement, Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 724 F.3d 1235, 1241 

(9th Cir. 2013), and is not rendered non-expressive simply 

because it is sold commercially, see MCA Records, 296 F.3d 

at 906–07.

We recently had “little difficulty” concluding that 

greeting cards, which combined the trademarked phrases 

“Honey Badger Don’t Care” and “Honey Badger Don’t Give 

a S - - -” alongside announcements of events such as 

Halloween and a birthday, were “expressive works” entitled 

to First Amendment protection. Gordon, 909 F.3d at 261–

63, 268. Even if the cards did not show great “creative 

artistry,” they were protected under the First Amendment 

because the cards “convey[ed] a humorous message through 

the juxtaposition of an event of some significance—a 

birthday, Halloween, an election—with the honey badger’s 

aggressive assertion of apathy.” Id. at 268–69.

Like the greeting cards in Gordon, the Bad Spaniels dog 

toy, although surely not the equivalent of the Mona Lisa, is 

an expressive work. See Empire Distribution, 875 F.3d 

at 1196 (“We decide this legal question de novo.”). The toy 

communicates a “humorous message,” see Gordon, 909 

at 268–69, using word play to alter the serious phrase that 

appears on a Jack Daniel’s bottle—“Old No. 7 Brand”—

with a silly message—“The Old No. 2.” The effect is “a 

simple” message conveyed by “juxtaposing the irreverent 

representation of the trademark with the idealized image 

created by the mark’s owner.” L.L. Bean, Inc., 811 F.2d at 

34 (affording First Amendment protection to a message “that 

business and product images need not always be taken too 

seriously”). Unlike the book in Dr. Seuss Enterprises, L.P. 

v. Penguin Books USA, Inc., 109 F.3d 1394 (9th Cir. 1997), 

which made “no effort to create a transformative work with 

‘new expression, meaning, or message,’” Bad Spaniels 

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 10 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 11

comments humorously on precisely those elements that Jack 

Daniels seeks to enforce here. Id. at 1401 (quoting Campbell 

v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc., 510 U.S. 569, 578, 580 (1994)). 

The fact that VIP chose to convey this humorous message 

through a dog toy is irrelevant. See Hurley v. Irish-Am. Gay, 

Lesbian & Bisexual Grp. of Bos., 515 U.S. 557, 569 (1995) 

(“[T]he Constitution looks beyond written or spoken words 

as mediums of expression.”).

The Fourth Circuit’s decision in Louis Vuitton Malletier 

S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 

2007), supports our conclusion. That opinion held that dog 

toys which “loosely resemble[d]” small Louis Vuitton 

handbags were “successful parodies of LVM handbags and 

the LVM marks and trade dress” and therefore did not 

infringe the LVM trademark.1 Id. at 258, 260, 263. The 

Fourth Circuit reasoned that although “[t]he dog toy is 

shaped roughly like a handbag; its name ‘Chewy Vuiton’ 

sounds like and rhymes with LOUIS VUITTON; its 

monogram CV mimics LVM’s LV mark; the repetitious 

design clearly imitates the design on the LVM handbag; and 

the coloring is similar,” “no one can doubt . . . that the 

‘Chewy Vuiton’ dog toy is not the ‘idealized image’ of the 

mark created by LVM.” Id. at 260. No different conclusion 

is possible here.

Because Bad Spaniels is an expressive work, the district 

court erred in finding trademark infringement without first 

requiring JDPI to satisfy at least one of the two Rogers

prongs. See Gordon, 909 F.3d at 265; see also E.S.S. Entm’t 

1 The Fourth Circuit decision was based on likelihood of confusion, 

not the First Amendment, see id. at 259–60, as it had not yet adopted the 

Rogers test, see Radiance Found., Inc. v. NAACP, 786 F.3d 316, 329 (4th 

Cir. 2015) (later applying it).

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 11 of 13
12 VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES

2000, 547 F.3d at 1101 (stating that “the First Amendment 

defense applies equally to . . . state law claims as to [a] 

Lanham Act claim”). We therefore vacate the district court’s 

finding of infringement and remand for a determination by 

that court in the first instance of whether JDPI can satisfy a 

prong of the Rogers test.2

D. Trademark Dilution by Tarnishment

When the use of a mark is “noncommercial,” there can 

be no dilution by tarnishment. 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C); 

see A.R.S. § 44-1448.01(C)(2). Speech is noncommercial 

“if it does more than propose a commercial transaction,” 

Nissan Motor Co. v. Nissan Comput. Corp., 378 F.3d 1002, 

1017 (9th Cir. 2004) (quoting MCA Records, 296 F.3d 

at 906), and contains some “protected expression,” MCA 

Records, 296 F.3d at 906. Thus, use of a mark may be 

“noncommercial” even if used to “sell” a product. See 

Nissan Motor Co., 378 F.3d at 1017; MCA Records, 

296 F.3d at 906.

Although VIP used JDPI’s trade dress and bottle design 

to sell Bad Spaniels, they were also used to convey a 

humorous message. That message, as set forth in Part II.C 

above, is protected by the First Amendment. VIP therefore 

was entitled to judgment in its favor on the federal and state 

law dilution claims. See Nissan Motor Co., 378 F.3d 

at 1017; MCA Records, 296 F.3d at 906.

2 If the plaintiff satisfies one of the Rogers elements, “it still must 

prove that its trademark has been infringed by showing that the 

defendant’s use of the mark is likely to cause confusion.” See Gordon, 

909 F.3d at 265;see also Louis Vuitton Malletier, 507 F.3d at 260 (noting 

that the application of likelihood-of-confusion factors “depend[s] to a 

great extent on whether its products and marks are successful parodies”).

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 12 of 13
VIP PRODUCTS V. JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES 13

III

We affirm the district court’s summary judgment in 

favor of JDPI on the issues of aesthetic functionality and 

distinctiveness, affirm the judgment as to the validity of 

JDPI’s registered mark, reverse the judgment on the issue 

of dilution, vacate the judgment after trial on the issue of 

infringement, and remand for further proceedings. The 

permanent injunction is vacated.3

AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, 

VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED. Each party 

to bear its own costs.

3 Because we hold that VIP was entitled to judgment in its favor on 

the trademark dilution claims and that the judgment in favor of VIP on 

the infringement claims must be vacated, we do not address VIP’s 

alternative challenges to these claims. And, because we vacate the 

permanent injunction, we do not address VIP’s argument that the district 

court erred in not limiting the scope of the permanent injunction.

Case: 18-16012, 03/31/2020, ID: 11646496, DktEntry: 58-1, Page 13 of 13