The Supreme Court ruled on Thursday that the First Amendment didn’t defend a chew toy for canine resembling a bottle of Jack Daniel’s from a lawsuit claiming trademark infringement.

The toy, the Bad Spaniels Silly Squeaker, has the form and different distinctive options of a bottle of Jack Daniel’s however with, as an appeals court judge put it, “lighthearted, dog-related alterations.”

The phrases “Old No. 7 Brand Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on the bottle are changed on the toy by “the Old No. 2, on your Tennessee carpet.” Where Jack Daniel’s says its product is 40 p.c alcohol by quantity, Bad Spaniels’ is alleged to be “43 percent poo.”

A tag hooked up to the toy says it’s “not affiliated with Jack Daniel Distillery.”

Justice Elena Kagan, writing for a unanimous courtroom, appeared amused by the dispute. “This case is about dog toys and whiskey,” she wrote, “two items seldom appearing in the same sentence.”

She added that the traits of the whiskey bottle had been acquainted to nearly everybody.

“A bottle of Jack Daniel’s — no, Jack Daniel’s Old No. 7 Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey — boasts a fair number of trademarks,” she wrote. “Recall what the bottle looks like (or better yet, retrieve a bottle from wherever you keep liquor; it’s probably there).”

After reproducing a shade {photograph} of the bottle, she continued: “‘Jack Daniel’s’ is a registered trademark, as is ‘Old No. 7.’ So too the arched Jack Daniel’s logo. And the stylized label with filigree (i.e., twirling white lines). Finally, what might be thought of as the platform for all those marks — the whiskey’s distinctive square bottle — is itself registered.”

Trademark instances typically activate whether or not the general public is more likely to be confused a few product’s supply. In the Bad Spaniels case, a unanimous three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, mentioned the First Amendment required a extra demanding take a look at when the challenged product was expressing an thought or standpoint.

“The Bad Spaniels dog toy, although surely not the equivalent of the Mona Lisa, is an expressive work” that makes use of irreverent humor and wordplay to poke enjoyable at Jack Daniel’s, Judge Andrew D. Hurwitz wrote for the panel.

But Justice Kagan mentioned there was no position for “any threshold First Amendment filter” within the case. Rather, she wrote, “the infringement claim here rises or falls on likelihood of confusion.”

That is the traditional inquiry in trademark instances. But Justice Kagan, in returning the case to decrease courts to investigate it, mentioned the chew toy’s mockery of the liquor bottle needed to determine within the evaluation, because it was not apparent that customers would suppose that Jack Daniel’s was chargeable for a toy poking enjoyable at itself.

Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr. made the same level when the case was argued in March, imagining a pitch assembly with a Jack Daniel’s government.

“Somebody in Jack Daniel’s comes to the C.E.O. and says: ‘I have a great idea for a product that we’re going to produce. It’s going to be a dog toy, and it’s going to have a label that looks a lot like our label, and it’s going to have a name that looks a lot like our name, Bad Spaniels, and what’s going to be purportedly in this dog toy is dog urine,’” Justice Alito mentioned, suggesting that customers had been unlikely to suppose the chew toy was produced or endorsed by the distiller.

Justice Kagan echoed the purpose in her opinion. “Consumers,” she wrote, “are not so likely to think that the maker of a mocked product is itself doing the mocking.” She added, “Self-deprecation is one thing; self-mockery far less ordinary.”

In a concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Alito, cautioned decrease courts in opposition to being too credulous in assessing surveys, that are commonplace in trademark litigation, “that purport to show that consumers are likely to be confused by an allegedly infringing product.”

Those surveys, she wrote, “may reflect a mistaken belief among some survey respondents that all parodies require permission from the owner of the parodied mark.”

In a Supreme Court brief within the case, Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products, No. 22-148, attorneys for the distiller wrote that “everyone likes a good joke.” But the chew toy, the transient mentioned, “confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned good will.”

Lawyers for the toy’s producer, VIP Products, mentioned it was following “in the playful parodic tradition that has ranged over a half-century from Topps’s Wacky Packages trading cards through ‘Weird Al’ Yankovic.”

The buying and selling playing cards, for pretend merchandise that mimicked actual ones, like Ratz Crackers, Jolly Mean Giant and Gulp Oil, had been enormously well-liked within the Nineteen Seventies, for a time outselling Topps baseball playing cards. “Yet the world did not end,” VIP Products told the justices.