U.S. Appeals Court Overturns “Bad Spaniels” Dog Toy Injunction, Holds Parody Does Not Constitute Trademark Tarnishment

On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed a lower court’s permanent injunction barring sales of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy, holding that the parody product did not tarnish the Jack Daniel’s trademark. The ruling marks a major turning point in the twelve-year trademark dispute.

The case began in 2014 when VIP Products LLC, based in Phoenix, introduced a rubber dog toy named “Bad Spaniels.” The toy mimicked the distinctive shape of Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, with labels playfully altering “Old No. 7” to “Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet,” and changing the alcohol-content statement to “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.” Jack Daniel’s sent VIP a cease-and-desist letter, and VIP responded by filing suit seeking a declaratory judgment that its product did not infringe Jack Daniel’s trademarks.

In 2017, the federal district court found that the toy constituted trademark infringement and dilution. The Ninth Circuit subsequently reversed key portions of that decision. After the case was remanded, VIP again prevailed, and Jack Daniel’s appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In 2023, the Supreme Court issued a significant ruling, holding that VIP could not invoke the Rogers test—which affords First Amendment protection for trademark use in artistic works—to defeat the infringement claims, because VIP used the contested marks as source identifiers for its own product. The Supreme Court, however, did not decide the merits of infringement or dilution, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

On remand, the district court ruled in 2025 that the toy constituted tarnishment of Jack Daniel’s marks by associating the brand with canine excrement, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting VIP from selling the toy. VIP again appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

The central issue on appeal was whether the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy constitutes trademark tarnishment under the Trademark Dilution Revision Act (TDRA)—i.e., whether it presented Jack Daniel’s famous marks in an unwholesome or indecent manner.

A unanimous three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed. Circuit Judge Miland Smith Jr., writing the 28‑page opinion, stated: “Neither the ‘Bad Spaniels’ wording nor the trade dress of the toy facially tarnishes Jack Daniel’s corresponding famous marks, and neither is presented in an unwholesome or indecent context such that it might tarnish the famous mark’s reputation.”

The Ninth Circuit’s reasoning rested on several key points:

First, the court emphasized that the context of the parody product’s use is critical. “The Bad Spaniels toy is a canine-oriented parody product, not intended for human consumption,” and the record contained no evidence from which a reasonable factfinder could infer that “excrement-related statements on a dog toy are equally likely to provoke disgust as the same statements on a consumer product intended for human consumption.”

Second, the court found that Jack Daniel’s had failed to meet its evidentiary burden. To establish tarnishment, Jack Daniel’s needed to show that each of the challenged elements of the “Bad Spaniels” toy was sufficiently similar to its famous design so as to cause reputational harm. Yet in the actual litigation, Jack Daniel’s focused its arguments on the toy’s name and shape, neglecting to address the “Old No. 7” core element.

Third, the court held that the excrement references on the parody toy, standing alone, were insufficient to prove tarnishment. “Neither the ‘Bad Spaniels’ wording nor the toy’s trade dress is presented in an unwholesome or indecent context.” The court also declined to credit the expert testimony on which Jack Daniel’s had relied during the 2018 bench trial—namely, that “any association with excrement would harm a food brand.”

With the injunction vacated, VIP may resume sales of the “Bad Spaniels” dog toy. Jack Daniel’s parent company, Brown‑Forman, has not yet publicly responded to the ruling. China Intellectual Property Lawyer Network will continue to follow further developments.