When a Supreme Court decision hits home

Like everyone else, I had strong feelings about the Supreme Court’s controversial decision regarding abortion, even though there was no way it would ever affect my body directly, for reasons too obvious to mention. But the Supremes are currently mulling over a decision that could strike to the very heart of my identity.

I refer, of course, to the suit filed by the Jack Daniel’s Whiskey company against an Arizona company named VIP Products, which makes doggy chew toys.

The toy at the heart of the case is a rubber squeak toy shaped and decorated like a Jack Daniel’s Tennessee Whiskey bottle. The toy, named Bad Spaniels, sports “doggy poop humor” all over it. For example, while the original bottle has the words “Old No. 7 brand” and “Tennessee Sour Mash Whiskey” on it, the toy has the words “The Old No. 2 on Your Tennessee Carpet.”

The Jack Daniel’s bottle notes that it is “40% alcohol by volume,” while the chew toy says it’s “43% Poo by Vol.” and “100% Smelly.”

VIP Products argues that it’s just pun-filled parody—bad jokes about good whiskey—and that Jack Daniel’s has no sense of humor. Jack Daniel’s lawyers argue that the “profit-motivated ‘joke’ confuses consumers by taking advantage of Jack Daniel’s hard-earned goodwill.”

Other companies are watching the outcome of this case as well, because VIP Products cranks out other parody products for dogs to chew, like Mountain Drool, which mimics Mountain Dew, and Heini Sniff’n, shaped like a Heineken bottle. Even Budweiser will be watching closely to see the fate of VIP’s Butt Wiper toy.

In a similar 2007 case, Louis Vuitton sued a chew toy manufacturer, Nevada-based Haute Diggety Dog, for selling a dog toy called Chewy Vuiton. A federal appeals court ruled in favor of free speech and bad doggy humor, and the luxury bag maker chose not to appeal.

But this current doggy toy case before the Supremes has me worried, not because I have a dog I’d like to give the toy to (I don’t), and not because I drink Jack Daniel’s (I don’t).

I am worried because my very identity is at stake with their ruling.

If you’ll look at the top of this page, you’ll see that my column is called “The view from Planet Kerth.” The more insightful of you may recognize that “Planet Kerth” sounds an awful lot like “Planet Earth.”

And if the Jack Daniel’s Whiskey company wins their case and the Supreme Court quashes the rights of a chew-toy company to make bad poop-themed parody jokes based on their name, what might happen to me if Planet Earth decides to whip my asteroid with a lawsuit? What chance would my lawyers have to win a court case against an entire planet?

I guess I can take some solace in the knowledge that no other planets have ever filed suit against companies here for appropriating their names. Mars candies still end up in Halloween baskets, and Mercury outboard motors still keep boats on an even keel. No court cases have stripped Venus apparel from women’s bodies—although I’d like to be there if it ever happens.

Still, those planets are all pretty far away. I’m not sure if they’ve even gotten the news that Earth companies are raking in the cash under their names.

But my Planet Kerth columns are published right here on Planet Earth, so how could the planet not take notice? And because the Internet makes my writing accessible to eight billion humans all over the planet, my name might be on the lips of literally dozens of readers. How could the planet miss what I’ve been doing? After all, every time we squirt out a bit more carbon into the atmosphere, Earth lets us know she’s watching us by sending another hurricane, blizzard, drought….

So I’m sure she’s watching the Supreme Court’s decision as closely as I am. Who will win: a deep-pocketed best-selling whiskey giant, or a tiny mom-and-pop gadget company? If you want a hint of which way the Republican-heavy court might rule, consider the fact that three of the top five individual donors to Mitch McConnell’s campaign funds have ties to Jack Daniel’s.

Then again, this might work the other way around, right? I mean, when it comes to Planet Earth vs. Planet Kerth, who actually owns the brand?

Has Planet Earth ever staked a claim to own the name? Sure, we all refer to her by that name, but has the planet itself ever used that name to refer to herself? It seems to me that she’s been awfully quiet about it for the past four-and-a-half billion years. To my knowledge, she hasn’t uttered a peep to claim ownership of the name Earth—or any other name, for that matter.

My column, on the other hand, has proudly worn the name Planet Kerth for close to fifteen years, and I have clippings to prove it. I have been there like an old dog, as regular as clockwork, dropping gems on the grass next to your driveway for you to pick up—an apt doggy-poop metaphor, some readers would say, considering the quality of my writing.

So I’ll be watching this Jack Daniel’s case closely. And if the whiskey company wins its suit, and if it quashes VIP Products from creating any product that even remotely hints at its name, I will immediately bring an unlawful parody suit against Planet Earth for using a name that sounds so close to mine.

It’s a move straight out of Donald Trump’s playbook: Double down and attack, even when—especially when—you know you’re dead wrong. And how could Trump’s Supreme Court disagree?

So stay tuned, my dozen or so faithful Kerthlings. Lively times await!

TR Kerth is the author of the book “Revenge of the Sardines.” Contact him at trkerth@yahoo.com.

---