Amna: Supreme court arguments
often deal with weighty matters
like abortion, religion and
discrimination.
Today, as John yang reports,
they focused on a chew toy for
dogs in a case that raises
questions about free speech and
commercial trademark
protections.
John: The maker of jack Daniels
whiskey has a bone to pick with
a marketer of dog chew toys.
The distiller of the iconic
American liquor wants to muzzle
the products.
America's second-largest dog toy
company and part of a $100
billion a year business.
For more than 120 years, jack
Daniels has used a distinctive
square bottle adorned with old
number 7 and Tennessee sour mash
whiskey.
Beginning in 2014, selling a
squeaky dog toy -- a replica of
a jack Daniels model that
proclaims the old number 2 on
your Tennessee carpet.
>> A hilarious dog tour that
will have everyone talking.
John: Part of their silly
squeakers line.
It says it is a playful parody.
Jack Daniel sedin could confuse
consumers into thinking it is
their product.
So now this dog toy tug-of-war
has gone to the supreme court.
Questions the justices are being
asked to decide is windows
parody crossed the line from
protected free speech to
trademark infringement?
Free speech advocates lined up
behind the dog toy company.
Defending parody as a
recognizable form of social
commentary.
Company such as Nike and
Campbell soup support jack
Daniels, sing notable trademarks
need protection.
>> We will hear an argument this
morning.
John: The justices worked
through the competing
interestsin today's oral
argument, which included
references to a pornographic
movie depicting the Dallas
cowboys cheerleader uniforms.
>> The movie "Debbie does
Dallas" was not aesthetically
pleasing.
It infringed on a trademark.
They do not want to talk about
the pornographic and poisonous
things that can be done.
John: A justice worried about
the case's first amendment
implications and seemed
spectacle that it could be
confused as a product from jack
Daniels.
>> Could any reasonable person
think that jack Daniels had
approved this use of the mark?
Let me envision this scene.
Someone inject Daniels comes to
the CEO and since I have a great
idea about a product we will
produce.
It will be a jog toy -- it will
be a dog toy and have a label
that looks a lot like our label
and it will have a name that
looks a lot like our name.
What will be in this dog toy is
dog urine.
Do you think the CEO will say
that is a great idea?
John: A justice questioned how a
dog toy could be protected
speech expressing a message.
>> This is not a political
t-shirt.
It is not a film.
It is not an artistic
photograph.
It is a standard commercial
product.
I do not see the parody but
whatever.
>> The distinction between goods
and that is a nonexistent
standard.
>> You are using somebody else's
mark as a source identifier and
that is not a first amendment
problem.
John: A supreme court analyst.
>> This court is very strong on
first amendment speech.
There are justices who are
concerned about not killing
parody, which is a very useful
and fun part of our lives and
products.
I do think that they are trying
to balance the first amendment
concerns here with the actual
parody and whether it does
damage to jack Daniels
trademark.
>> They will chew over -- for
the pbs "Newshour," I am John