You'd think except there are two ways at least they can allow the use and not dilute their mark.
They can allow the use and have included a statement that the mark is used by permission of the mark owner (whatever it is they are claiming is their registered mark). Or they can require that the claimant makes a statement that they are not associated with Jack Daniels and any similarity of the mark is incidental.
Jack Daniels as an alcoholic beverage doesn't lie in the same Nice classification as literature and so doesn't really infringe. There is no passing off, no trademark infringement just a similarity in design style which is mostly likely a copyright infringement; which again JD could allow if they wished without any prejudicial effect on any other threat of litigation they wish to proffer in the future.
No note is going to prevent the dilution of the mark. Most people won't read the note, or care, and the impact of the mark on bookshelves and elsewhere will be unchanged. Problem is the mark isn't incidental, it's the exact same with different words.
Yes it's copyright infringement. No it doesn't dilute their mark. You think because they've used the same flourishes as JD use that people are going to think this is a bottle of bourbon and not a book? Or that that will have any effect of peoples perception of JD as a drink?
The lack of the brand name and the product name are rather key to the mark as a whole wouldn't you say?
They can allow the use and have included a statement that the mark is used by permission of the mark owner (whatever it is they are claiming is their registered mark). Or they can require that the claimant makes a statement that they are not associated with Jack Daniels and any similarity of the mark is incidental.
Jack Daniels as an alcoholic beverage doesn't lie in the same Nice classification as literature and so doesn't really infringe. There is no passing off, no trademark infringement just a similarity in design style which is mostly likely a copyright infringement; which again JD could allow if they wished without any prejudicial effect on any other threat of litigation they wish to proffer in the future.