Well, it appears that just because this is a parody does not mean it is fair use.<p>I noticed that in the lawyer response, a court case was cited. I did a search for this court case and found plenty of analysis. It turns out that the Congress passed a law, the Trademark Dilution Revision Act, which specifically provided protections from parodies. But...<p>> ... the concern with the TDRA's "fair use" parody clause is twofold. First, it is too broad in some respects by immunizing all non-source-denoting parodies from liability in one fell swoop. The main criticism of such a broad-brush approach is that it fails to assess the message communicated by the parody and its effect on the reputation of the mark. Second, the clause is, quite ironically, too narrow in other respects, as it excludes from its ambit certain source-denoting parodies that might be deserving of protection.<p>So the question, I guess, is whether this parody is excluded by the poorly-worded TDRA. Remember that earlier this year the Supreme Court sided with Jack Daniels in a trademark parody dispute against a dog toy manufacturer!<p>[1] <a href="https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1563&context=clr" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://scholarship.law.campbell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?art...</a>