這不是傑克丹尼爾！從VIP Product v Jack Daniel’s談商標嘲諷
【許慈真／北美智權報 專欄作家】
※如欲轉載本文，請與北美智權報聯絡
「嘲諷」（parody）或稱「戲謔仿作」，一直是著作權與商標領域百談不厭的話題。對於被嘲諷著作或商標所有人而言，不僅認為權利受損，往往也感覺遭到冒犯；至於嘲諷作品的發想者，或許想利用他人聲譽吸引市場注目，或者想表達個人理念，是否一律為法所不容？本篇透過2020年VIP Product v. Jack Daniel’s案判決，說明法院如何處理商標嘲諷所觸及的混淆誤認之虞、淡化與言論自由問題。
本案初審原告VIP Products, LLC（後稱VIP）是設計、生產並銷售一系列名為「Silly Squeakers」犬用橡膠玩具的廠商，該系列仿自各種知名飲料瓶裝外觀，並以狗元素做出調侃幽默的改造；例如2013年推出的系爭商品「Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker」，外觀即與初審被告Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc.（後稱JDPL）經典商品「Old No. 7 Black Label Tennessee Whiskey」雷同，但以「Bad Spaniels」（壞壞西班牙獵犬）取代「Jack Daniel’s」、以「Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet」（您田納西地毯上的陳年2號）取代「Old No. 7 Tennessee Whiskey」、以「100% SMELLY」（絕對難聞）取代酒精含量說明「43% POO BY VOL」等。而系爭商品上另貼附「本商品非產自Jack Daniel酒廠」等文字的標籤。
VIP指出，其推出Silly Squeakers系列商品之用意在於「反思狗在人類生活中的人性化」，並表示其「極為嚴肅看待此一構想」。自2007年至2017年為止，Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker銷售數量已逾百萬個之多。
訴訟概要
2014年，JDPL要求VIP停止銷售系爭商品，VIP遂向亞利桑那聯邦地區法院提起訴訟，請求法院確認該商品未侵害或淡化JDPL的商標權，抑或確認JDPL的商業外觀（trade dress）及酒瓶設計（後合稱系爭包裝）不受保護，並且請求撤銷JDPL瓶身設計的註冊保護（No. 4106178，後稱系爭商標）。JDPL則提起反訴，指控VIP構成蘭哈姆法（Lanham Act，15 U. S. C. §1051及以下規定）第1114(1)條與第1125(a)(1)條之商標與商業外觀侵權，以及第1125(c)條之商標與商業外觀淡化。
本案相關產品及包裝 （商品圖片來源：www.walmart.com）
其他參考產品及包裝 （商品圖片來源：www.walmart.com）
初審法院認定：
VIP無權主張指示性合理使用（nominative fair use），因為其並非以相同標識或商業外觀使用於系爭商品；也無法以第一修正案（First Amendment）作為合理使用之抗辯，因為系爭包裝是用於推銷較不具表達性（non-expressive）的商業產品。
系爭包裝具識別性、非通用性（non- generic）且非功能性，故可獲得商標保護。
VIP侵害系爭包裝並構成商標淡化之污損類型（tarnishment）。
並且判決JDPL勝訴及核發永久禁制令，禁止VIP採購、製造、廣告、宣傳、展示、運送、進口、要約銷售、出售或經銷系爭商品。
VIP不服，向聯邦第九巡迴上訴法院提起上訴。上訴法院最終做出部分維持（系爭商標有效性）、部分無效（商標侵權）、部分撤銷（商標淡化及永久禁制令）初審判決並發回更審的決定，各爭點討論分別如下。
系爭包裝及商標是否受保護？
儘管JDPL酒瓶有多項同為其他威士忌公司慣用的個別元素，但其商業外觀是由酒瓶與標籤元素（例如「Jack Daniel’s」與「Old No. 7」文字標記）組合而成，根據先前判決見解，保證由特定實體生產、贊助或認可的產品設計若加入任意性裝飾，即非屬功能性。故上訴法院認為，就整體特徵而言，初審法院認定系爭包裝具識別性且非美感功能性（Aesthetic Functionality）並無違誤，其確實可受保護。
再者，鑑於註冊是推定商標有效性的表面證據，VIP不僅未成功推翻系爭商標之識別性與有效性，也未能證明各項元素（包括「Jack Daniel」簽名浮雕設計）在整體觀察上係屬於功能性或欠缺識別性。
VIP使用是否屬於指示性合理使用？
上訴法院認為，儘管系爭商品模仿系爭包裝，但彼此間仍有極大區別，包括系爭商品上的西班牙獵犬圖像及標籤文字；正因兩造標識並不相同，故初審法院認定VIP不得主張指示性合理使用並無違誤。
VIP可否以第一修正案作為抗辯事由？
主張言論自由或商標侵權的前哨戰：Rogers測試
上訴法院表示，商標侵權的核心為混淆誤認之虞測試，這也是平衡第一修正案與商標保護的重要機制，然而，涉及爭議的若是「藝術性表達」，該測試可能難以充分衡量自由表達所蘊含的公共利益。因此，表達性著作適用蘭哈姆法必須符合Rogers v. Grimaldi案建立的任一項前提條件，亦即，原告必須證明被告使用特定標識係：
與所利用的著作不具藝術上的關聯性；或
明顯使消費者對著作的來源或內容產生錯誤認知。
再者，為判斷作品是否具表達性，需視其是否旨在「交流思想或表達觀點」而定。當然， 該作品既不必達到曠世巨作那般藝術成就，也不因用於商業銷售而認定為不具表達性 。
表達性著作：Gordon v. Drape Creative案
上訴法院先前曾為賀卡用語是否屬於表達性著作而大傷腦筋：該案判決最終認定，被告將「Honey Badger Don’t Care」或「Honey Badger Don’t Give a Shit」等文字與節日名稱並列於卡片上，該卡片雖無極高的藝術創作性，但透過「蜜獾挑釁但冷漠的發言」與「具重大意義節日」兩者並列（juxtaposition）之手法，傳達出幽默訊息，便屬於第一修正案所稱之表達性著作。
同樣地，系爭商品利用文字遊戲，將系爭包裝上的正經資訊替換成傻裡傻氣的短語，例如將「Old No. 7 Brand」變成「The Old No. 2」，製造出「以無禮方式表示特定標識」與「商標權人所創作理想化形象（idealized image）」的並列效果。而這些不必太當真的商業及商品圖像，雖不具高度藝術性，但已蘊含幽默意味，正是受到第一修正案保護的表達性著作。
上訴法院進一步指出，系爭商品確實 藉由嶄新表述方式、或賦予嶄新意義或訊息等手法，轉變原本著作 ，詼諧戲謔地詮釋JDPL在酒瓶上彰顯的各項元素。至於VIP是利用犬用玩具或其他形式傳達該幽默訊息，都無關緊要，因為 這僅是表達的一種媒介 而已。
成功的戲謔仿作：LVM v. Haute Diggity Dog案
聯邦第四巡迴上訴法院曾於LVM v. Haute Diggity Dog案判決指出，被告的犬用玩具外型大致模仿原告小型手提包設計，其名稱「Chewy Vuiton」（耐嚼的沃頓）與「LOUIS VUITTON」發音類似且韻尾相同，花押文字「CV」則模仿LV商標，配色也相仿；儘管如此，任何人均會同意該玩具並非LVM標識的理想化形象。故法院最終認定，被告商品無疑是LVM手提包及其標識與商業外觀之成功的戲謔仿作（successful parody），不構成侵權。須注意的是，該法院當時尚未採納Rogers測試，因此，是以「混淆誤認之虞」作為裁判依據，而非「第一修正案」。
回到本案。系爭商品既然屬於表達性著作，但初審法院判斷侵權與否之前，並未要求JDPL證明Rogers案任一前提條件，因此，上訴法院認定有關商標侵權之裁判部分為無效，要求初審法院依據Rogers測試重新判決。此外，上訴法院表示，即使JDPL成功通過Rogers測試，仍必須證明VIP使用構成混淆誤認之虞，而 是否適用混淆誤認之虞的各項考量因素，則取決於被告產品及標識有多大程度屬於成功的戲謔仿作 。
VIP使用是否構成商標淡化？
根據蘭哈姆法第1125(c)(3)(C)條規定，非於商業上使用特定標識，並不構成商標淡化之污損類型。先前判決指出，特定言論（speech）若不單是為促成商業交易，而是包含某些受保護的表達內容在內，即不具備商業性質（noncommercial），換言之， 即使為銷售商品而使用特定標識，仍可能非屬商業上之使用 。
有鑑於此，上訴法院認為VIP雖是模仿系爭包裝來銷售系爭商品，但其使用標識之手法同時也蘊含幽默意味，而這正是受第一修正案保護的表達內容，自當不構成商標淡化。
結語
本案再度讓「第一修正案的保護傘範圍」這議題成為矚目焦點。繼JDPL於2020年9月15日提出請願，請求最高法院簽發調卷令（writ of certiorari）以繼續審理本案後，包括酒精飲料產業協會、Campari America LLC、Constellation Brands, Inc.、Campbell Soup Company等利害關係者紛紛提交法庭之友意見書——顯然，此次訴訟不僅是JDPL個人戰役，也是其他飲品廠商在意的戰場。很可惜的是，最高法院已於2021年1月11日駁回此項請願，因此，暫時無法得知上訴法院的見解是否恰當。
【詳細內容請見《北美智權報》279期；歡迎訂閱《北美智權報》電子報】
Pharrell Williams Takes the Stage in Miami, Plus Ben Affleck, Rihanna and More
Dua Lipa, winner of Best Pop Vocal Album for ‘Future Nostalgia’, poses in the media room during the 63rd Annual GRAMMY Awards at Los Angeles Convention Center on March 14, 2021 Image zoom
Are Commercial Parody Dog Toys Subject to the Heightened Rogers Test, and Do They Qualify As Non-Commercial Works under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act? Jack Daniels and Amici Ask the U.S. Supreme
The dog toy industry has drawn the ire of many famous brands; one of the latest examples is VIP Products’s “Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker” dog toy, fashioned to resemble Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Black Label Tennessee Whiskey. The toy replaced “Jack Daniel’s” with “Bad Spaniels,” along with a drawing of a guilty-looking spaniel. Instead of “Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey,” the toy read, “Old No. 2 on your Tennessee Carpet.” Instead of “40% ALC BY VOL (80 PROOF),” the toy read, “43% POO BY VOL” and “100% SMELLY.”
Jak Daniel’s emerged victorious before the United States District Court, District of Arizona on summary judgment and after a bench trial on its trademark infringement and trademark dilution claims. However, while the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the validity of Jack Daniel’s trade dress, it vacated and remanded the judgment on the infringement claim, and reversed the judgment on the dilution claim.
The Infringement Claim
The Ninth Circuit noted that while trademark and trade dress infringement cases turn on likelihood of confusion, if the otherwise infringing goods involve “artistic expression,” a plaintiff must also show either that the defendant’s use of the mark is either “not artistically relevant to the underlying work,” or “explicitly misleads consumers as to the source of content of the work”—otherwise known as the Rogers test, named after Rogers v. Grimaldi, 875 F.2d 994 (2d Cir. 1989) and adopted by the Ninth Circuit in Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, 296 F.3d 894, 900 (9th Cir. 2002).
Whether a work is expressive depends on whether the work “communicat[es] ideas” or “express[es] points of view.” The work need not be considered high art, nor do the work’s availability commercially vitiate any expressive qualities. The Ninth Circuit concluded that the Bad Spaniels toy was an expressive work that conveyed humor, and it thus vacated judgment and remanded the claim to the district court to consider the Rogers test.
Jack Daniels now seeks certiorari from the United States Supreme Court, arguing that the Rogers test should be limited to the use of trademarks in the titles or contents of expressive or artistic works, not a commercial dog chew toy.
The Dilution Claim
The Ninth Circuit noted that a non-commercial use of a mark is not subject to trademark dilution claims. Then, without any in-depth discussion, the Ninth Circuit concluded that because the Bad Spaniels product was protected by the First Amendment, VIP was entitled to judgment on the dilution claims in its favor.
Jack Daniels also seeks certiorari from the Supreme Court on this issue, arguing that a commercial product’s use of humor should not render the product “noncommercial” under 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3)(C), and thus barring a dilution by tarnishment claim.
Previously, in the Mattel case, the Ninth Circuit held that as long as a work was not purely commercial (for example, the song “Barbie Girl”), then the First Amendment defense can apply to dilution claims. Mattel, Inc. v. MCA Records, Inc., 296 F.3d 894, 907 (9th Cir. 2002). However, due to the lack of analysis in the Jack Daniels opinion, it is not clear how the Ninth Circuit found the Bad Spaniels squeaker toy as not purely commercial.
Jack Daniel’s and its amici—including Campbell Soup Company, Campari America, Alcohol Beverage Industry Associations, Constellation Brands, and International Trademark Association—expressed concern in their briefing that a defendant selling a commercial product may escape any liability under the dilution laws by simply making the product humorous.
Chewy Vuitton
One of the more famous dog toy cases is Louis Vuitton Malletier S.A. v. Haute Diggity Dog, LLC, 507 F.3d 252, 263 (4th Cir. 2007), which involved a “Chewy Vuitton” dog toy. In fact, the Ninth Circuit cited to this Fourth Circuit case in supporting its own Jack Daniels opinion. However, in the Louis Vuitton case, while the dog toy’s parodic nature dominated much of the opinion, the Fourth Circuit found no likelihood of confusion in part because the products were different, and there was minimal overlap between advertising and sales channels. The Jack Daniels district court found the opposite, that likelihood of confusion existed, in part because Jack Daniels licensed its intellectual property for certain dog products.
As to the dilution by tarnishment claim in Louis Vuitton, the Fourth Circuit ruled that Louis Vuitton failed to satisfy its burden that the dog toy would harm its reputation. While reaching a similar result, the Ninth Circuit instead cited to the First Amendment and non-commerciality as its reason for reversing judgment on the dilution by tarnishment claim.
In other words, while both the Fourth Circuit and Ninth Circuit ruled in favor of the dog toy producers, the appellate courts relied on different analyses.
Case Status and Opinions
The Supreme Court has yet to grant certiorari to review the case. VIP Products and its amici—Trademark Law professors, including Rebecca Tushnet of Harvard Law School—filed their briefs on December 16, 2020, and Jack Daniels filed its reply brief on December 23, 2020.
While consumers may or may not confuse a famous whiskey brand with a potty-humored dog toy, and the dog toy may or may not tarnish the whiskey brand’s reputation, it appears that the main objections from amici and commentators stem from the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning, or lack thereof. The Ninth Circuit’s opinion could lead to an expansion of what constitutes “expressive” and/or “non-commercial” works, unless the Supreme Court decides to take on the issue and rule otherwise.