I was curious, so I grabbed three undergraduate-level physics texts I had nearby.
One explicitly recites the Ultraviolet Catastrophe prompted Planck story, complete with Rayleigh's incomplete formula.
One essentially matches the story in section 2, using the lesser version of Rayleigh's formula, but (just like the story) does not explicitly tie Planck's work to it. (That textbook notes "an act of desperation" is a quote from one of Planck's letters.)
The third one is interesting! It says that "late nineteenth century physicists tried to understand the shape of the blackbody spectrum [...] using their knowledge of thermodynamics and electromagnetic waves. Their efforts ended in failure." This third text never mentions Rayleigh by name and doesn't specifically show "Rayleigh's Lesser Formula", but it does graph that formula vs. the observed blackbody radiation (interestingly, as a function of frequency instead of wavelength).
The text then eventually says that in 1900, Planck used a photon argument "to make a theoretical prediction that is in excellent agreement with the experimental spectrum". It does not explicitly state cause and effect, but it's kinda implied from the structure of the writing.
Reading into the third text a smidge, it feels like the result of wanting to use the Rayleigh/Catastrophe story and yet knowing it wasn't quite true.
A bit of an oversimplification and slightly wrong, but the problem is essentially that it is a Bad Spaniels brand dog toy, parodying the sound-a-like Jack Daniels brand whiskey.
There exists the Rogers Test in trademark law that says that, for an /artistic work/, all a defendant has to do is show that a) the trademark is relevant to the artistic work, and b) the title is not explicitly misleading (to make the audience think the work is created/supported by the trademark holder).
The Rogers Test, reserved for artistic work, is gentler than normal trademark defense. Bad Spaniels chew toy passed this test easily.
The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that, because the chew toy is released by the Bad Spaniels /brand/, the Rogers /artistic work/ analysis is not appropriate.
Instead, it should be litigated as a brand vs. brand trademark dispute.
In a brand vs. brand dispute, Jack Daniels will have to instead prove that the Bad Spaniels brand is likely to cause confusion with regards to Jack Daniels brand's involvement in the product.
This is a higher bar to clear than Rogers test, because the trademark doesn't have to be explicitly confusing; it just needs to be likely.
I'm not a lawyer or a judge, but I don't think Jack Daniels will prevail even with the stricter standard.
(IMO,) this ruling is barely going to matter in the long run: if the Bad Spaniels chew bottle was sold by Bob's Novelties and did not included the word "brand" after "Bad Spaniels", then the Rogers test would still apply.
More specifically, Steve Jobs founded NeXT after Apple pushed him out in the late 80s.
A decade or so later, Apple was on the tail end of a long, slow, downward slide. The team wasn't happy with the current state of their Mac operating system, and bought out NeXT to use their software as the basis of its replacement (Mac OS X).
Jobs, as CEO of NeXT, came back to Apple as a consultant, but was CEO again in a matter of years.
One explicitly recites the Ultraviolet Catastrophe prompted Planck story, complete with Rayleigh's incomplete formula.
One essentially matches the story in section 2, using the lesser version of Rayleigh's formula, but (just like the story) does not explicitly tie Planck's work to it. (That textbook notes "an act of desperation" is a quote from one of Planck's letters.)
The third one is interesting! It says that "late nineteenth century physicists tried to understand the shape of the blackbody spectrum [...] using their knowledge of thermodynamics and electromagnetic waves. Their efforts ended in failure." This third text never mentions Rayleigh by name and doesn't specifically show "Rayleigh's Lesser Formula", but it does graph that formula vs. the observed blackbody radiation (interestingly, as a function of frequency instead of wavelength).
The text then eventually says that in 1900, Planck used a photon argument "to make a theoretical prediction that is in excellent agreement with the experimental spectrum". It does not explicitly state cause and effect, but it's kinda implied from the structure of the writing.
Reading into the third text a smidge, it feels like the result of wanting to use the Rayleigh/Catastrophe story and yet knowing it wasn't quite true.