The ruling is explicitly saying that the humor of a parody doesn’t enter into the question of whether that parody is infringing on a trademark. They’re saying t

The ruling is explicitly saying that the humor of a parody doesn’t enter into the question of whether that parody is infringing on a trademark. They’re saying that using a trademark parody as a trademark must be decided on actual trademark law, not on free speech protections. That is to say regardless of how funny or not funny someone may find my starting a “Microshit Software” company, if I start aping and using Microsoft’s trade dress in selling my own products under the Microshit brand, it is the fact that I am aping another brand means I don’t get to claim “artistic expression” to avoid answering a trademark dispute. We have to actually resolve the trademark conflict because I am using the parody elements as a brand.