While most trademark lawyers are familiar with the “Bad Spaniels” and “Chewy Vuitton” cases on trademark parody in federal court, decisions of the USPTO’s Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) on trademark parody marks have rarely been examined. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit determined that “Chewy Vuitton” dog toys effectively parodied the iconic “Louis Vuitton” luxury handbags. See Louis Vuitton Malletier v. Haute Diggity Dog, 507 F.3d 252 (4th Cir. 2007) (hereinafter Chewy). The court found no likelihood of confusion, emphasizing that “an effective parody will actually diminish the likelihood of confusion.” Over a decade later, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the First Amendment does not grant trademark parodies a safe harbor from infringement claims. See Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products, 599 U.S. 140 (2023).
But how does the TTAB evaluate applications for registration of parody marks? To analyze this issue, we conducted a search of all TTAB proceedings discussing “parody.” Subsequently, we narrowed the results to include only parodies being used as a “source identifier”—indicating that the parody serves as “a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services.” See DC Comics v. Gotham City Networking, 2012 TTAB LEXIS 196, at *11 (TTAB 2012).
