But the question is confusion over product in the same product area. It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an a

But the question is confusion over product in the same product area. It seems absurd to me that a reasonable person would confuse that dog toy parody with an actual Jack Daniels product. Also, unanimity per se doesn't necessarily mean the court is on the right side of things: I'm not sure that positions on, say, abortion necessarily translates into trademark positions. One nuance in this that seems to be lost though if I'm recalling the case correctly is that this isn't deciding the case, it's just saying it can't automatically be dismissed pre trial. So maybe that's where the unanimity comes into play. Still, between this and the Worhol case I'm concerned. Overall this doesn't seem like a good path to be going down in my personal opinion. To me a dog toy that's clearly a parody should be protected speech, probably more clearly than other things. It feels to me like there's this emerging zeitgeist of "commercial entities are above real criticism because they might be financially injured" which is absurd, and more than an individual would enjoy in terms of protection. Let's say you made a Trump brand dog toy? Would it be reasonable to say that is not protected speech because it infringes on his trademark?