蜜柚直播

But what it is, according to Judge Andrew Hurwitz, is an 鈥渆xpressive work.鈥� And that makes its use protected by the First Amendment against claims by the company that makes Jack Daniels that the toy infringes on its copyright.

The fight that got the attention of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals deals with a product called 鈥淏ad Spaniels Silly Squeaker,鈥� a rubber dog toy which resembles the bottle of Jack Daniels Old No. 7 Black Label Tennessee Whiskey.

There are some 鈥渄og-related alterations.鈥�

For example, the 鈥淥ld No. 7鈥� on the label is replaced by 鈥淥ld No. 2.鈥� And instead of alcohol-content descriptions, the toy was labeled 鈥�43% Poo by Vol.鈥� and 鈥�100% Smelly.鈥�

The company that owns Jack Daniels demanded that VIP Productions LLC, based in Scottsdale, stop selling the product.

VIP responded by filing suit and asking for a declaration that it was doing nothing wrong and even asking the court to cancel the Jack Daniels trademark.

A trial judge sided with the whiskey company, deciding the toy infringed on the Jack Daniels trademark and ordering VIP to stop selling the product.

But in a ruling Tuesday, the federal appeals court dissolved that injunction.

Hurwitz, writing for the three-judge panel, said VIP sells various kinds of Silly Squeakers dog toys that look like other items but with a twist.

For example, he said, there鈥檚 one labeled 鈥淢ountain Drool鈥� which resembles a Mountain Dew bottle. More than a million Silly Squeakers were sold between 2007 and 2017.

On one hand, the appellate judges said the 鈥渢rade dress鈥� and bottle design of Jack Daniels are distinctive. That, Hurwitz wrote, meant the company can keep its trademark.

But the judge said that didn鈥檛 end the discussion. He said there also is an issue of 鈥渁rtistic expression.鈥�

鈥淭he Bad Spaniels dog toy, although surely not the equivalent of the Mona Lisa, is an expressive work,鈥� Hurwitz wrote.