Syllabus

NOTE: Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued. The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U. S. 321, 337.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Syllabus JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC. v. VIP PRODUCTS LLC CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT

No. 22–148. Argued March 22, 2023—Decided June 8, 2023 The Lanham Act, the core federal trademark statute, defines a trade- mark by its primary function: identifying a product’s source and dis- tinguishing that source from others. In serving that function, trade- marks help consumers select the products they want to purchase (or avoid) and help producers reap the financial rewards associated with a product’s good reputation. To help protect trademarks, the Lanham Act creates federal causes of action for trademark infringement and trademark dilution. In a typical infringement case, the question is whether the defendant’s use of a mark is “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” 15 U. S. C. §§1114(1)(A), 1125(a)(1)(A). In a typical dilution case, the question is whether the defendant “harm[ed] the reputation” of a famous trademark. §§1125(c)(2)(A), (C). Respondent VIP Products makes a squeaky, chewable dog toy de- signed to look like a bottle of Jack Daniel’s whiskey. But not entirely. On the toy, for example, the words “Jack Daniel’s” become “Bad Span- iels.” And “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” turns into “The Old No. 2 On Your Tennessee Carpet.” These jokes did not im- press petitioner Jack Daniel’s Properties, which owns trademarks in the distinctive Jack Daniel’s bottle and in many of the words and graphics on its label. Soon after the Bad Spaniels toy hit the market, Jack Daniel’s de- manded that VIP stop selling it. VIP filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment that Bad Spaniels neither infringed nor diluted Jack Dan- iel’s trademarks. Jack Daniel’s counterclaimed for infringement and dilution. At summary judgment, VIP argued that Jack Daniel’s in- fringement claim failed under the so-called Rogers test—a threshold 2 JACK DANIEL’S PROPERTIES, INC. v. VIP PRODUCTS LLC

Syllabus

test developed by the Second Circuit and designed to protect First Amendment interests in the trademark context. See Rogers v. Gri- maldi, 875 F. 2d 994. When “expressive works” are involved, VIP con- tended, that test requires dismissal of an infringement claim at the outset unless the complainant can show either (1) that the challenged use of a mark “has no artistic relevance to the underlying work” or (2) that it “explicitly misleads as to the source or the content of the work.” Id., at 999. Because Jack Daniel’s could not make that showing, VIP claimed, the Lanham Act’s statutory “likelihood of confusion” standard became irrelevant. And as for the dilution claim, VIP urged that Jack Daniel’s could not succeed because Bad Spaniels was a parody of Jack Daniel’s and therefore made “fair use” of its famous marks. §1125(c)(3)(A)(ii). The District Court rejected both of VIP’s contentions for a common reason: because VIP had used the cribbed Jack Daniel’s features as trademarks—i.e., to identify the source of its own products. As the District Court saw it, when another’s trademark is used for “source identification,” Rogers does not apply, and instead the infringement suit turns on likelihood of confusion. The court likewise rejected VIP’s