SCOTUS Watch

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:01 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 11:35 am
malchior wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 10:48 am The new rule is that unless the bodies of water are touching above ground they can be regulated. If the water pollution joins the water underground then it's all coolio. You know because those 9 are experts/scientists. SCOTUS delenda est.
I'm speechless.To completely not understand the connection between wetlands and the water we all need to exist is insane. Insane.
They understand the connection but lawsplanations and reality don't have to match up. Write it down and close the case.
Yep. This isn't about law. It is about power. The comparison of wetlands to puddles is too absurd to be taken at face value.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

Can't wait to see articles wondering how the Cuyahoga River is on fire...again. We managed 50 years - a blink of an eye - before apparently deciding money really was more important.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Smoove_B wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:10 pm Can't wait to see articles wondering how the Cuyahoga River is on fire...again. We managed 50 years - a blink of an eye - before apparently deciding money really was more important.
You can see how the return on investment for the oligarchs is *really* paying off. Meanwhile this decision comes only days after we just Saw states begin to deal with issues over water rights which won't be helped by this decision. This may not be super quick but this is a new phase of an even uglier devolution across various legal landscapes.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

It's extra crazy because the EPA is finally getting around to issuing guidelines and recommendations on PFAS - chemicals we've known about for 50+ years but within the last few decades are only realizing how problematic they are. So now as we start to quantify just how contaminated our waters are by "forever chemicals" and do *something* to try and remove them from drinking water, the Supreme Court decides its NBD for companies to pollute the very watercourses that are (ideally) helping to recharge our finite fresh water supply.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Zarathud
Posts: 16437
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 10:29 pm
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zarathud »

The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
"If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts." - Albert Einstein
"I don't stand by anything." - Trump
“Bad men need nothing more to compass their ends, than that good men should look on and do nothing.” - John Stuart Mill, Inaugural Address Delivered to the University of St Andrews, 2/1/1867
“It is the impractical things in this tumultuous hell-scape of a world that matter most. A book, a name, chicken soup. They help us remember that, even in our darkest hour, life is still to be savored.” - Poe, Altered Carbon
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
Plus he can just find some new BS to bar any response.

Has Alito gotten crazier, or is he just less restrained because of the 6-3 majority?
Black Lives Matter.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

El Guapo wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
Plus he can just find some new BS to bar any response.

Has Alito gotten crazier, or is he just less restrained because of the 6-3 majority?
Less restrained. The Conservatives are definitely flexing their tyranny. In a broader sense the whole opinion was weird. The holding is unanimous but only 4 joined Alito on his concurring opinion. Kavanaugh(!) joined the liberal's concurring with Kagan who scolded the other opinion for being unrestrained. The second grounp still sided with the owners but had an entirely different (less crazy!) rationale on it.
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by waitingtoconnect »

Smoove_B wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:10 pm Can't wait to see articles wondering how the Cuyahoga River is on fire...again. We managed 50 years - a blink of an eye - before apparently deciding money really was more important.
“When the last tree is cut down, the last fish eaten and the last stream poisoned, you will realize that you cannot eat money. But you can eat people. Soylent Green, now with more gun violence victims*.”

* may contain traces of lead shot. For California residents only, the state of California has found Soylent Green to contain high amounts of cancer causing chemicals.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

malchior wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:34 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
Plus he can just find some new BS to bar any response.

Has Alito gotten crazier, or is he just less restrained because of the 6-3 majority?
Less restrained. The Conservatives are definitely flexing their tyranny. In a broader sense the whole opinion was weird. The holding is unanimous but only 4 joined Alito on his concurring opinion. Kavanaugh(!) joined the liberal's concurring with Kagan who scolded the other opinion for being unrestrained. The second grounp still sided with the owners but had an entirely different (less crazy!) rationale on it.
I haven’t read this yet, but the fact that the holding is unanimous makes me think this isn’t so clear cut. Last time I checked, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson weren’t exactly chomping at the bit to dismantle the EPA. Or maybe I’m just missing something really obvious.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Kurth wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 11:00 pm
malchior wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:34 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
Plus he can just find some new BS to bar any response.

Has Alito gotten crazier, or is he just less restrained because of the 6-3 majority?
Less restrained. The Conservatives are definitely flexing their tyranny. In a broader sense the whole opinion was weird. The holding is unanimous but only 4 joined Alito on his concurring opinion. Kavanaugh(!) joined the liberal's concurring with Kagan who scolded the other opinion for being unrestrained. The second grounp still sided with the owners but had an entirely different (less crazy!) rationale on it.
I haven’t read this yet, but the fact that the holding is unanimous makes me think this isn’t so clear cut. Last time I checked, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson weren’t exactly chomping at the bit to dismantle the EPA. Or maybe I’m just missing something really obvious.
The unanimous part of the holding is being disingenuously being conveyed to make it sound reasonable when there were 2 very different legal rationales underneath. The liberals + Kavanaugh sided with the home owners for non-crazy, very ordinary procedural reasons. The majority concurring opinion was the one that leapt the rails and redefined "waters".
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

malchior wrote: Fri May 26, 2023 7:28 am
Kurth wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 11:00 pm
malchior wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 2:34 pm
El Guapo wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 1:51 pm
Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
Plus he can just find some new BS to bar any response.

Has Alito gotten crazier, or is he just less restrained because of the 6-3 majority?
Less restrained. The Conservatives are definitely flexing their tyranny. In a broader sense the whole opinion was weird. The holding is unanimous but only 4 joined Alito on his concurring opinion. Kavanaugh(!) joined the liberal's concurring with Kagan who scolded the other opinion for being unrestrained. The second grounp still sided with the owners but had an entirely different (less crazy!) rationale on it.
I haven’t read this yet, but the fact that the holding is unanimous makes me think this isn’t so clear cut. Last time I checked, Kagan, Sotomayor and Jackson weren’t exactly chomping at the bit to dismantle the EPA. Or maybe I’m just missing something really obvious.
The unanimous part of the holding is being disingenuously being conveyed to make it sound reasonable when there were 2 very different legal rationales underneath. The liberals + Kavanaugh sided with the home owners for non-crazy, very ordinary procedural reasons. The majority concurring opinion was the one that leapt the rails and redefined "waters".
Also on top of everything else, that Alito's opinion was (as I understand it) a plurality opinion does create some ambiguity about what the law is in this area. And since the outcome was unanimous also suggests to me that Alito (and the majority) refused to compromise on the rationale around why the owners should win.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Pyperkub »

Zarathud wrote: Thu May 25, 2023 12:38 pm The SCOTUS ruling requires a strong Congressional response to overrule the technical (and stupid) interpretation of waters. Alioto Harlan Crow and Co. knows that’s not going to happen because Congress is broken.
FTFY!
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed a victory to business interests in a labor dispute, but the win was more of a whimper than a roar.

By an 8-to-1 vote, the high court ruled against unionized truck drivers who walked off the job, leaving their trucks loaded with wet concrete, but it preserved the rights of workers to time their strikes for maximum effect.
...
The case was brought by Glacier Northwest, a cement company in Washington state, against the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. After the union's contract had expired and negotiations broke down, the union signaled its members to walk off the job after its drivers had loaded that day's wet concrete into Glacier's delivery trucks.

The company sued the union in state court, claiming the truck drivers had endangered company equipment. Wet concrete, it explained, hardens easily, and the company had to initiate emergency maneuvers to offload the concrete before it destroyed the trucks.

But the Washington Supreme Court ruled that Glacier's complaint should have been filed with the National Labor Relations Board. For nearly 70 years, the Supreme Court has said that federal law gives the Board the authority to decide labor disputes as long as the conduct is even arguably protected or prohibited under the federal labor law.
...
The high court did not overturn or otherwise disturb its longstanding rule giving the NLRB broad authority in labor disputes, leaving unions free to time when they will strike.

At the same time, the court's majority decided the case in favor of the company in a very fact specific way. The court ultimately said the union's conduct in this particular case posed a serious and foreseeable risk of harm to Glacier's trucks, and because of this intentional harm, the case should not have been dismissed by the state supreme court.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed a victory to business interests in a labor dispute,
Enlarge Image
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29819
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by stessier »

El Guapo wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:02 pm NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed a victory to business interests in a labor dispute,
Enlarge Image
Yeah, but also this seems pretty fair. They can still strike and hurt business interests, they just can't knowingly do something designed to damage equipment.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
El Guapo
Posts: 41247
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 4:01 pm
Location: Boston

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by El Guapo »

stessier wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:11 pm
El Guapo wrote: Fri Jun 02, 2023 12:02 pm NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday handed a victory to business interests in a labor dispute,
Enlarge Image
Yeah, but also this seems pretty fair. They can still strike and hurt business interests, they just can't knowingly do something designed to damage equipment.
Yeah, I agree. Mainly I'm just reacting to the first sentence, and how shocking it was to read that.
Black Lives Matter.
User avatar
Defiant
Posts: 21045
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:09 pm
Location: Tongue in cheek

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Defiant »

The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down Republican-drawn congressional districts in Alabama that civil rights activists say discriminated against Black voters in a surprise reaffirmation of the landmark Voting Rights Act.

The court in a 5-4 vote ruled against Alabama, meaning the map of the seven congressional districts, which heavily favors Republicans, will now be redrawn. Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Brett Kavanaugh, both conservatives, joined the court's three liberals in the majority.
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/suprem ... -rcna64476
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

Thomas wrote that his preferred outcome “would not require the federal judiciary to decide the correct racial apportionment of Alabama’s congressional seats.”

He added that under the approach taken by the lower court, Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act “is nothing more than a racial entitlement to roughly proportional control of elective offices .... wherever different racial groups consistently prefer different candidates.”
A) Perhaps you should have thought about that before you voted in Shelby County v. Holder.

B) That's kind of the point. And you're an asshole.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Yeah, my god someone punch him in the nuts, please.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

Today was a pretty good day as far as recent SCOTUS decisions. In addition to the one striking down the stupid Alabama congressional districts, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion smacking down the 9th Circuit for running roughshod over well established trademark law principles in Jack Daniels v. VIP Products.

This was the trademark decision talked about extensively in this thread above. It's the one pitting Jack Daniels against a dog toy maker who made a squeaky dog toy in the shape of a Jack Daniels bottle, imitating both Jack Daniels' traditional trademarks and its trade dress in its bottle design.

Jack Daniels won at trial, but the 9th Circuit reversed, holding, in essence, that trademark law must take a back seat to the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit, and VIP Products and all the amicus briefs lined up in support, argued that if a work -- here, the dog toy -- was a work of artistic expression, it could only ever be found to infringe a trademark if its use of the mark had no relevance to its expressive content or if its use of the mark was explicitly misleading (this is known as the Rogers test). That's a barrier that's nearly impossible to get over for a trademark holder.

SCOTUS - Kagan writing for the majority - punted the 9th Circuit's holding and reversed and remanded, finding that the Rogers test, as wrongly applied by the 9th Circuit, creates a loophole that could swallow trademark law whole. Instead, without opining on Rogers itself, SCOTUS held that the Rogers test has no application in a situation where the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark is use that would normally be considered trademark use (source identifying), regardless of whether or not the defendant's use has an expressive element.

This is a really well-reasoned and solid decision. Like the recent and tangentially related Warhol case (in the copyright context), there will be those screaming that this will silence artistic expression and creativity and be the end of parody, but they are full of it. This is an outcome that strikes a reasonable balance between IP rights and creative expression.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
ImLawBoy
Forum Admin
Posts: 14950
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:49 pm
Location: Chicago, IL
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by ImLawBoy »

I'm an amateur IP lawyer at best so I left the real analysis to Kurth previously, but this seems like the right outcome to me.
That's my purse! I don't know you!
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:18 pm Today was a pretty good day as far as recent SCOTUS decisions. In addition to the one striking down the stupid Alabama congressional districts, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion smacking down the 9th Circuit for running roughshod over well established trademark law principles in Jack Daniels v. VIP Products.

This was the trademark decision talked about extensively in this thread above. It's the one pitting Jack Daniels against a dog toy maker who made a squeaky dog toy in the shape of a Jack Daniels bottle, imitating both Jack Daniels' traditional trademarks and its trade dress in its bottle design.

Jack Daniels won at trial, but the 9th Circuit reversed, holding, in essence, that trademark law must take a back seat to the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit, and VIP Products and all the amicus briefs lined up in support, argued that if a work -- here, the dog toy -- was a work of artistic expression, it could only ever be found to infringe a trademark if its use of the mark had no relevance to its expressive content or if its use of the mark was explicitly misleading (this is known as the Rogers test). That's a barrier that's nearly impossible to get over for a trademark holder.

SCOTUS - Kagan writing for the majority - punted the 9th Circuit's holding and reversed and remanded, finding that the Rogers test, as wrongly applied by the 9th Circuit, creates a loophole that could swallow trademark law whole. Instead, without opining on Rogers itself, SCOTUS held that the Rogers test has no application in a situation where the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark is use that would normally be considered trademark use (source identifying), regardless of whether or not the defendant's use has an expressive element.

This is a really well-reasoned and solid decision. Like the recent and tangentially related Warhol case (in the copyright context), there will be those screaming that this will silence artistic expression and creativity and be the end of parody, but they are full of it. This is an outcome that strikes a reasonable balance between IP rights and creative expression.
So wait. Just want to continue to conversation a bit...


I felt this squeaky toy was pretty much satire, (or whatever the legal term would be that would protect this use)... Additionally, I thought it was harmless to the brand, and didn't like that JD was making a deal about it.

Are you familiar with (I will guess, No, only because I'm a pessimist about my childhood memories being shared by others) the old "Wacky Packages" trading card stickers?


They were all - totally fun - totally harmless examples of this same exact thing.


Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image

Me, and all my friends, collected these things and loved them. It was fun and cost these companies nothing in sales.

They had many, many more - and if you look - each and every single one of them does the same exact thing that Dog Toy did.

have your pick:
https://wackypacks.com/stickers/alphabetical.html

Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image


At one point, our world was that this little company could poke fun at dozens and dozens of Huge products and make their entire product about doing it to them all. It was (to me, as a kid) a wonderful example of the freedom of speech.

And now, we have this one damn squeaky dog-toy that is silenced because of "Bad Spaniel".


This is NOT a good thing. IMO. Not at all.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Blackhawk »

I don't know the answer, but I have a feeling that it has something to do with the dog toy having a primary purpose (as a dog toy) in addition to being parody, rather than simply being a parody of the product itself (sort of the way you can't parody one trademark with another trademark.)
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Blackhawk wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 10:30 pm I don't know the answer, but I have a feeling that it has something to do with the dog toy having a primary purpose (as a dog toy) in addition to being parody, rather than simply being a parody of the product itself (sort of the way you can't parody one trademark with another trademark.)
I think I used these stickers in the exact (if not MORE malicious, I bought and shared the product myself in sole celebration of the unbridled if unearned contempt for to products they portray.) way that it's being used today.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

Unagi wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 7:36 pm
Kurth wrote: Thu Jun 08, 2023 3:18 pm Today was a pretty good day as far as recent SCOTUS decisions. In addition to the one striking down the stupid Alabama congressional districts, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous opinion smacking down the 9th Circuit for running roughshod over well established trademark law principles in Jack Daniels v. VIP Products.

This was the trademark decision talked about extensively in this thread above. It's the one pitting Jack Daniels against a dog toy maker who made a squeaky dog toy in the shape of a Jack Daniels bottle, imitating both Jack Daniels' traditional trademarks and its trade dress in its bottle design.

Jack Daniels won at trial, but the 9th Circuit reversed, holding, in essence, that trademark law must take a back seat to the freedom of expression under the First Amendment. The 9th Circuit, and VIP Products and all the amicus briefs lined up in support, argued that if a work -- here, the dog toy -- was a work of artistic expression, it could only ever be found to infringe a trademark if its use of the mark had no relevance to its expressive content or if its use of the mark was explicitly misleading (this is known as the Rogers test). That's a barrier that's nearly impossible to get over for a trademark holder.

SCOTUS - Kagan writing for the majority - punted the 9th Circuit's holding and reversed and remanded, finding that the Rogers test, as wrongly applied by the 9th Circuit, creates a loophole that could swallow trademark law whole. Instead, without opining on Rogers itself, SCOTUS held that the Rogers test has no application in a situation where the defendant's use of the plaintiff's mark is use that would normally be considered trademark use (source identifying), regardless of whether or not the defendant's use has an expressive element.

This is a really well-reasoned and solid decision. Like the recent and tangentially related Warhol case (in the copyright context), there will be those screaming that this will silence artistic expression and creativity and be the end of parody, but they are full of it. This is an outcome that strikes a reasonable balance between IP rights and creative expression.
So wait. Just want to continue to conversation a bit...


I felt this squeaky toy was pretty much satire, (or whatever the legal term would be that would protect this use)... Additionally, I thought it was harmless to the brand, and didn't like that JD was making a deal about it.

Are you familiar with (I will guess, No, only because I'm a pessimist about my childhood memories being shared by others) the old "Wacky Packages" trading card stickers?


They were all - totally fun - totally harmless examples of this same exact thing.


Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image

Me, and all my friends, collected these things and loved them. It was fun and cost these companies nothing in sales.

They had many, many more - and if you look - each and every single one of them does the same exact thing that Dog Toy did.

have your pick:
https://wackypacks.com/stickers/alphabetical.html

Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image
Enlarge Image


At one point, our world was that this little company could poke fun at dozens and dozens of Huge products and make their entire product about doing it to them all. It was (to me, as a kid) a wonderful example of the freedom of speech.

And now, we have this one damn squeaky dog-toy that is silenced because of "Bad Spaniel".


This is NOT a good thing. IMO. Not at all.
I understand your concern, but it's misplaced.

The legal term I think you're looking for is, "parody," and it's important to note that this SCOTUS holding doesn't mean that little companies can't parody big companies and incorporate parts of the big companies trademarks in doing so. Rather, this was all about the appropriate test to apply.

This was covered in some depth earlier in this thread. I was going to cut and paste it here, but I couldn't find it in five minutes of looking and just gave up. So here's an overview, and apologies if it's too in the law weeds, but the procedural stuff is important:

Jack Daniels was appealing a ruling of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals that gave VIP Products -- maker of Bad Spaniels -- a win on a motion to dismiss. That's a motion filed by a defendant at the very beginning of the case that basically says, taking all the allegations in the plaintiff's complaint as true, the plaintiff still can't win because they don't have a claim under the law. VIP Products argued, and the 9th Cir. agreed, that when a defendant in a trademark infringement case shows that the allegedly infringing work is "an expressive work" or "an artistic work," Constitutional concerns derived from the 1st Amendment protections for freedom of expression trump trademark law, and such work can only infringe a trademark if it's either (1) using a trademark in a way that has no relevance to the work; or (2) is explicitly misleading about the source or origin of the work. As I mentioned before, that's an impossible test that can almost never be met. Worse, the determination that something is an "expressive work" is so subjective and open-ended, applying this test as the 9th Circuit did would basically eviscerate trademark rights. I mean, even the most mundane consumer products can be said to have "expressive" elements.

This case is important, and rightly decided, because it rejected that test. Instead, the Court held that if an accused trademark infringer is using a trademark in an expressive way (e.g., as a parody), that can be an important factor to take into account when determining whether there's a likelihood of confusion as to source or affiliation, something the plaintiff has to prove to establish its trademark is infringed. After all, as Kagan pointed out, brands don't often mock themselves, so proving likelihood of consumer confusion as to source or affiliation when an infringement claim is directed at that kind of mocking, parodic use may well be an uphill climb. But the trademark plaintiff should get to try. It's case shouldn't be dismissed right out of the gate.

Again, this doesn't mean that VIP Products and other companies making products that poke fun at big brands can't win and avoid liability. They're not being silenced. It's just that they shouldn't be able to win on a motion to dismiss based on the 9th Circuit's wacky application of the Rogers test.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

I appreciate your explanation of the specifics here, that does help me feel better about it.

You’ve adjusted another’s opinion on the internet.

Achievement Unlocked!
User avatar
Alefroth
Posts: 8489
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:56 pm
Location: Bellingham WA

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Alefroth »

Unagi wrote: Fri Jun 09, 2023 8:28 am I appreciate your explanation of the specifics here, that does help me feel better about it.

You’ve adjusted another’s opinion on the internet.

Achievement Unlocked!
viewtopic.php?p=2941983#p2941983
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

Huh.

Well it looks like Kurth already had this achievement unlocked.
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Kurth »

I think I get an additional unlock for SCOTUS level! :)

Also, just one more thing to add if all this spikes your interest in the intersection of TM law and art/criticism/parody/creative expression: The SCOTUS holding is important but narrow in that they restricted their rejection of Rogers to situations where the alleged infringer was using the TM at issue in the fundamental TM sense as a designator of source or origin.

VIP Products pretty much shot itself in the foot by pleading in its original complaint (VIP Products actually sued JD seeking a declaratory judgment from the court that BAD SPANIELS did not infringe) that VIP, itself, owned TM rights in its BAD SPANIELS branding. They tried to walk away from that in argument before SCOTUS, but the court said, “not so fast.” SCOTUS said you can’t co-opt someone else’s TM arguing that you’re just using the mark to make fun of the big company while simultaneously using the mark as your own TM designating you as the source of origin of the product.

Those were bad, bad facts for VIP Products.

What’s going to be really interesting to TM law nerds is when the next case like this comes along - and there are many in the pipeline - where the alleged infringer is going to argue that it’s not using the TM owner’s mark as a TM, but, instead, for some other purpose (decorative, ornamental, etc.). That’s the next battleground: What does it really mean to use a trademark as a trademark?
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

There must be some fair use of a parody of a trademark -- but I support the ruling that one shouldn't be allowed to also pretend it's your own trademark...

But, to parody a product - one would need to draw upon the original trademark to even be a parody.

"Crust" Toothpaste
Cheapios
Rinkled Wrap

I'm not sure if I do entirely understand the specifics of the laws on this. In your opinion, would those be vulnerable to a day in court too?
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Isgrimnur »

NPR
The U.S. Supreme Court, defying predictions, upheld the Indian Child Welfare Act Thursday.

By a 7-to-2 vote, the court upheld the law's preferences for Native tribes when Indian children are adopted, ruling that the law does not discriminate on the basis of race and does not impermissibly impose a federal mandate on traditionally state-regulated areas of power.

ICWA has stood as a landmark law since it was enacted over 45 years ago after a congressional investigation found that over one-third of all Native children had been removed from their tribal homes and placed with non-Indian families and institutions with no ties to the tribes.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Surprise. Alito is a corrupt POS too. He preemptively defends himself in the WSJ portraying free flights for junkets as "standard practice" in a piece smearing Propublica.



Edit: More context

Last edited by malchior on Tue Jun 20, 2023 10:24 pm, edited 2 times in total.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

Lol. Also it occurred to me that it was smart of Alito to Streisand effect something in advance.

Zenn7
Posts: 4447
Joined: Wed Dec 22, 2004 10:15 pm
Location: Michigan

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Zenn7 »

malchior wrote: Tue Jun 20, 2023 8:53 pm Lol. Also it occurred to me that it was smart of Alito to Streisand effect something in advance.

US Deputy Marshals that would have have been required to assist him? Unless they were required before/after boarding, while he was driving there and while he was in public in Alaska, why would they be required while he was on a public flight?
And if they were required for all that other crap, not much further inconvenience to take the flight? And not so much cost since he'd be paying for his own ticket?

I mean, the whole thing's ludicrous but that part stood out as something that seems like a lie to help support the rest of his lie. "I shouldn't have to pay taxes because I use my money to employee people and make America great." or something like that.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

And now the story that Alito pre-whined about. And seriously when is this particular garbage man not whining about how unfair he is treated?

ProPublica
In early July 2008, Samuel Alito stood on a riverbank in a remote corner of Alaska. The Supreme Court justice was on vacation at a luxury fishing lodge that charged more than $1,000 a day, and after catching a king salmon nearly the size of his leg, Alito posed for a picture. To his left, a man stood beaming: Paul Singer, a hedge fund billionaire who has repeatedly asked the Supreme Court to rule in his favor in high-stakes business disputes.

Singer was more than a fellow angler. He flew Alito to Alaska on a private jet. If the justice chartered the plane himself, the cost could have exceeded $100,000 one way.

Get Our Top Investigations
Subscribe to the Big Story newsletter.

Email address:
Enter your email
In the years that followed, Singer’s hedge fund came before the court at least 10 times in cases where his role was often covered by the legal press and mainstream media. In 2014, the court agreed to resolve a key issue in a decade-long battle between Singer’s hedge fund and the nation of Argentina. Alito did not recuse himself from the case and voted with the 7-1 majority in Singer’s favor. The hedge fund was ultimately paid $2.4 billion.

Alito did not report the 2008 fishing trip on his annual financial disclosures. By failing to disclose the private jet flight Singer provided, Alito appears to have violated a federal law that requires justices to disclose most gifts, according to ethics law experts.

Experts said they could not identify an instance of a justice ruling on a case after receiving an expensive gift paid for by one of the parties.

“If you were good friends, what were you doing ruling on his case?” said Charles Geyh, an Indiana University law professor and leading expert on recusals. “And if you weren’t good friends, what were you doing accepting this?” referring to the flight on the private jet.

Justices are almost entirely left to police themselves on ethical issues, with few restrictions on what gifts they can accept. When a potential conflict arises, the sole arbiter of whether a justice should step away from a case is the justice him or herself.

ProPublica’s investigation sheds new light on how luxury travel has given prominent political donors — including one who has had cases before the Supreme Court — intimate access to the most powerful judges in the country. Another wealthy businessman provided expensive vacations to two members of the high court, ProPublica found. On his Alaska trip, Alito stayed at a commercial fishing lodge owned by this businessman, who was also a major conservative donor. Three years before, that same businessman flew Justice Antonin Scalia, who died in 2016, on a private jet to Alaska and paid the bill for his stay.

Such trips would be unheard of for the vast majority of federal workers, who are generally barred from taking even modest gifts.

...

ProPublica sent Alito a list of detailed questions last week, and on Tuesday, the Supreme Court’s head spokeswoman told ProPublica that Alito would not be commenting. Several hours later, The Wall Street Journal published an op-ed by Alito responding to ProPublica’s questions about the trip.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by malchior »

BTW the open contempt they treat us the public is bottomless. Alito defends himself by saying the seat would have gone unused if he didn't use it. Later he'd say he hardly knew Singer and that he had no idea the cases involved Singer. Bullshit.

Singer also claims that he didn't organize the trip on his own plane and didn't know Alito would be there. And didn't talk to Alito about business. Ok, right. The 2nd right-wing Supreme Court justice who just appeared on his plane was just happenstance. Give me a break. They think we're this stupid and can't see how corrupt they are. And to some extent it doesn't matter because they know they are untouchable. This corrupt system probably will do nothing.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Smoove_B »

Wow. As it turns out, Clarence Thomas was just helping to model norms for other justices. I'm sure it's just those two though and there's really not a widespread issue in the Court.

Also, JFC.

EDIT: Oh, this is a great photo from the article. Scalia making martinis from Alaskan glacial ice.

Enlarge Image
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Unagi
Posts: 26376
Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 5:14 pm
Location: Chicago

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by Unagi »

That’s just perfect.

It’s like a live action political cartoon. Only just a photo.

To be fair, he was pretty sure that ice was going to melt anyway…


We can only hope they maybe ingested an ancient bacteria for which we have no cure.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Are we all chumps for having integrity? That's the message I'm constantly getting from our venerable pillars of government.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
LordMortis
Posts: 70101
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:26 pm

Re: SCOTUS Watch

Post by LordMortis »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jun 21, 2023 4:06 pm Are we all chumps for having integrity? That's the message I'm constantly getting from our venerable pillars of government.
+1
Post Reply