A lot of people talking shit about JD's case here but I think it's a completely valid dispute.

The draw of the product is that it's shaped like a JD bottle. That's why owners are buying it. Now there's some amount of dispute on whether or not this is parody, but is that the intent of the product? It could be argued both ways. I find it likely that the text being modified on the product is not its main draw, i.e. the parody component is not why people are buying it, it's merely an afterthought, but I don't think there's a hard line in parody to determine that legally. This doesn't serve as criticism of the brand, but that isn't a necessity of parody... it's a lot more complicated legally, to me, than just "lol it said poop, it's parody."