The Dangers of Parody Trademarks

Thu, 10/30/25

The Fine Line Between Parody Trademarks and Infringement:

What Brand Owners Need to Know

Starting a new business is an exciting venture, and for many entrepreneurs, a catchy brand name for their company or products is the first step toward success. In recent years, companies—especially breweries, wineries, and toy manufacturers—have adopted parody trademarks to garner attention for their products. A clever and humorous parody mark can be an amusing way to stand out, but it also carries significant risks.

A “parody trademark” is a mark that uses an existing brand in a satirical or humorous manner. These marks take recognizable elements from the original and change them with a humorous twist to create a new commercial impression. However, a parody must be perceived by consumers as a critique or joke, rather than as an indication of an affiliation between the businesses. If the parody mark uses a well-known brand’s recognition to sell its own products, it may be deemed infringing by the owner of the pre-existing brand, even when such use is consistent with the law.  And this is where the danger lies.

The following are examples of parody marks for beer, some of which were challenged:

Parody Marks and the Law

Parody marks are often vulnerable to claims of infringement and dilution from the owners of the original trademarks. There is a fine line between a legal parody and an invalid one. The legal standards for these cases are based on the Lanham Act and the First Amendment.

• The Lanham Act: This federal statute protects against trademark infringement and dilution.
  • Trademark Infringement: This occurs when a mark is likely to cause consumer confusion regarding the source or affiliation of goods.
  • Trademark Dilution: This happens when a new trademark weakens the distinctiveness of a famous, pre-existing mark. It can also occur when a new mark harms the famous mark’s reputation, which is called “tarnishment.”
  • Unlike infringement, dilution claims do not require proof of consumer confusion.
• The First Amendment: The U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects expressive works, which include parodies. However, courts must weigh the right to free expression against the rights of trademark owners in commercial settings.

Notable Cases: A Tale of Two Parodies

Two recent court cases highlight the risks and legal complexities of parody marks:

• Louis Vuitton v. Haute Diggity Dog (2007): In this case, a court ruled that dog toys sold under the name “CHEWY VUITON” were a protected parody. The court found that the parody did not infringe or dilute Louis Vuitton’s trademarks because consumers were unlikely to believe Louis Vuitton made dog toys. The parody was seen as poking fun at the famous French brand in a way that helped reinforce the distinctiveness of the Louis Vuitton brand, rather than tarnishing its reputation.

• Jack Daniel’s v. VIP Products (2023): VIP Products created a dog toy named “Bad Spaniels,” which mimicked the Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle. Jack Daniel’s sued, and the case eventually went to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower court’s test for expressive works did not apply because the “Bad Spaniels” toy used the parody mark as a source identifier for its product. On remand, a U.S. District Court found that the dog toy diluted the Jack Daniel’s trademark and ordered VIP Products to stop selling it.

The L’Eggo My Eggroll Case: A Cautionary Tale

The pending lawsuit by Kellogg’s against an Ohio food truck called “L’Eggo My Eggroll” further illustrates the inherent danger of using parody marks. The food truck’s name is a clear play on Kellogg’s well-known “L’Eggo My Eggo” slogan, and its branding uses nearly identical yellow and red colors and cursive font. Kellogg’s claims that the food truck is not commenting on or critiquing Eggo waffles, but is simply using a slight variation of the famous slogan and trade dress to sell egg rolls and capitalize on Kellogg’s brand recognition.

Kellogg’s initially offered to pay for the food truck’s rebranding to avoid litigation. However, after the food truck’s owner refused, Kellogg’s filed a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement and dilution. This case underscores that even a seemingly harmless parody can be viewed as infringing, compelling a company to take legal action to protect its brand. Here, the food truck owner could lose everything, and the case serves as a potent reminder that using parody marks is risky and frequently unlawful.

The Importance of Professional Guidance

The potential for litigation, monetary damages, and the destruction of infringing materials makes parody marks a particularly risky choice for a new business or brand. While parody can be a valuable creative tool, their improper use can confuse consumers and/or dilute the distinctiveness of a famous mark. Many parody marks fail to effectively poke fun at, critique, or provide commentary on the pre-existing mark it is parodying.

The “L’Eggo My Eggroll” case illustrates the crucial importance of seeking guidance from experienced trademark attorneys before launching a new brand. Conducting thorough due diligence before branding is essential, particularly when considering a parody. A knowledgeable legal team can help you navigate the complexities of trademark law, ensuring your brand is both creative and legally protected.