This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
The Supreme Court held that using a trademark to designate the source of the infringer’s own goods is not a permissible non‑commercial use, even when the use is a parody.
The Court also rejected the Ninth Circuit’s broad “non‑commercial use” exemption, stating it cannot cover every parody or humorous commentary.
Background and question before the Court
The case was argued on March 22, 2023 and decided on June 8, 2023.
What each side argues
Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc.
According to Jack Daniel's Properties, Inc., jack Daniel's Properties, Inc. argued that VIP’s “Bad Spaniels” dog toy copies Jack Daniel’s trademark and trade dress and associates its whiskey with dog poop, constituting infringement and dilution.
According to MS. BLATT, ms. Blatt testified that a survey showed 25 % of respondents were confused about the source of the product, which the plaintiff described as a “massively high” level of confusion.
Ms. Blatt argued that all trademarks are expressive and that infringing them implicates speech rights, asserting the plaintiff’s interests include preventing compelled speech in contexts such as pornography and sex toys.
VIP Products LLC
According to Mr. Cooper, vIP argued that the “Bad Spaniels” product is a parody.
According to Mr. Cooper, vIP contended that the product’s “explicitly misleading” aspect is a mechanism of confusion consistent with the Lanham Act.
According to Mr. Cooper, vIP explained that a commercial would be an advertisement, and the “Bad Spaniels” product is not an advertisement, thus not commercial speech.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Thomas asked whether a statement could be misleading yet not be confusing under the Lanham Act.
According to Justice Kagan, justice Kagan questioned why the plaintiff was making a broad argument when narrower arguments were available.
Justice Alito asked whether the survey results should be decided by a jury.
According to Justice Sotomayor, justice Sotomayor expressed hesitation about discarding the Rogers test that many circuits rely on.
Justice Gorsuch asked how the Court should handle the case on remand, given the parody nature of the product.
What the Court decided
The majority held that using a trademark to designate the source of the infringer’s own goods is not a permissible non‑commercial use, even if the use is a parody.
The majority also held that the “non‑commercial use” exemption cannot be applied to every parody or humorous commentary.
Justice Sotomayor wrote a concurrence noting that some survey respondents mistakenly believe that all parodies require permission from the mark owner.
Justice Gorsuch wrote a concurrence emphasizing that lower courts should handle Rogers v. Grimaldi with care.
Why it matters
The decision clarifies that a parody does not automatically exempt a product from trademark infringement under the Lanham Act.
It limits the scope of the “non‑commercial use” defense, affecting future cases involving parodic uses of trademarks.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 4fe0e903519b2f239ed2-r1-59ebbc138d52549a.pdforal argument transcript
- 8ce682c9a889148eb08e-r1-45a1d9a2e608ac47.pdfopinion
Guide generated September 29, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.