> VIP had conceded that it used "Bad Spaniels" as a trademark. > Cited a "Chick-Fil-Hate" t-shirt as an example of a parody product that could still receive Fi

> VIP had conceded that it used "Bad Spaniels" as a trademark. > Cited a "Chick-Fil-Hate" t-shirt as an example of a parody product that could still receive First Amendment protection because it conveys a message about Chick-fil-A and does not use "Chick-Fil-Hate" as a trademark. > "If Chik-Fil-Hate were also on the inside of the shirt on the tag, that would be more of a trademark use," Roberts said. Seems reasonable. It's ok for a product to identify itself as product X making a statement Y. Y can use trademarks, but X cannot. In this case, the bottle is designed to look like a Jack Daniels bottle. If they put a visible, small yellow label at the top stating "Parody Gifts" then the rest of the design would be fine because it clearly discloses the bottle is not from Jack.