It also says nothing about parody for commercial purposes. It just says that you can't claim parody as a defense of your own trademark. If the dog toys had had

It also says nothing about parody for commercial purposes. It just says that you can't claim parody as a defense of your own trademark. If the dog toys had had some specific trademark of the original company, but then also some parody of Jack Daniels bottles on them, the ruling may well have agreed that they are protected under the parody exceptions. The problem was not that they were profitting off of their parody, but that they used the parody itself as their only trademark. It's as if instead of the band AQUA releasing a song called "Barbie Girl", there had been a band called "Barbie Girl" which used the Barbie logo in all of their branding and album covers, and then tried to claim they were just a parody.