check this for plagerism This week we learned about intellectual property. We learned there are four main kinds of intellectual property; a trade secret $($which is proprietary business info$),$ a patent $($which could be of a product, process, or design$),$ a trademark $($which could be of a name, symbol, slogan, etc.$)$ and copyright $($which is essentially a recorded expression$).$ I was especially interested in trademarks, and the concept of dilution. Dilution is the idea a mark or name used in commerce, is similar enough to another famous mark, and it diminishes the public's perception of the renowned symbol through association.

An example of this in effect is in the case of Jack Daniels Properties, Inc. $($Jack Daniel$$s$)$ against VIP Products LLC $($VIP$).$ In the lawsuit, Jack Daniel$$s was suing VIP for trademark infringement and dilution because of VIP$$s chewable dog toy that very closely resembled a Jack Daniel$$s bottle. Jack Daniel$$s requested that VIP stop selling this product, called $$BAD SPANIELS$,$ a play on the classic $$Jack Daniel$$s$.$

VIP claimed that they were the owner of the Bad Spaniels trademark and trade dress. Jack Daniel$$s counterclaimed by using dilution and trademark infringement. Eventually, the case was brought to the Supreme Court, where it was unanimously agreed with Jack Daniel$$s$.$ The Supreme Court clarified that the Rogers test $($which essentially states that if a trademark is used in an artistic way and not just to show where the product comes from, it might be okay unless it confuses the source of the product$)$ did not apply to this case, because the defendant$$s use $($VIP$)$ was only partly source$-$identifying. It highlighted the importance of determining whether or not a mark could be used as a source$-$identifier.