So to adjust your example, if a group had a political complaint against Foster Farms and made a website claiming to sell obviously foul products, that would be a rich example of parody. "Damaging the brand" is pretty much the goal in an action like this.
I don't think pretending to be another entity should ever be permissible. The integrity of communications should not be compromised. Nor is that the intention of the parody-based fair use principles in IP law. The intention of the parody exception to liability is to give artists an opportunity to make fun of the high and mighty. Not to pretend to be them.
If we allow fraudulent messaging to come under the umbrella of parody protection, then this same exception will be abused by parties to malign their competitors. It will be difficult for consumers to know or trust the source of messaging, goods, or services.
It is no excuse to say no goods or services were actually produced, because to advertise a shitty bundle of goods in the name of another is enough to cast doubt on the good sense of that other.
A proper parody makes no pretense of its source. It proudly proclaims itself a form of protest. It doesn't dissemble and try to corrupt the flow of information/communication in commerce.
While we cannot always protect information about you, we can help protect you. Google Trust offers you the world's first model for data insurance.
It's completely free, you pay with your data. The more Google products you use, the higher your insurance payout will be in case of data misuse through secret service or private criminals. Your policy will be automatically offered to you, based on our assessment of your risk.
If that's not "making fun of the high and mighty" I don't know what is.
You can also read more here: http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/blog/shellfail-insi...
In my opinion this clearly classifies as parody.
Imagine the same standards being applied when someone is pretending to be you and maligning your name in public with foolish declarations.
Next, in the examples not an individual is "impersonated" but a faceless, anonymous corporation. I would have way more problems with the parody if an individual (independent to if I like them or not) would be impersonated or ridiculed.
If somebody makes similar fun of my employer, I would not mind at all.
I don't want to go into the example you brought up with Foster Farms, you should realize that this comparison is pretty much flawed.
With a few exceptions, The Yes Men do not do parody. Hoaxes and parody are quite different things.
Parodies in the past did not depend on fooling people as to the source of words. It is enough to conjure up a thought of the parties parodied, through use of similar symbols/words/methods. One doesn't have to actually pretend to be them in an exact way for parody to hit its mark. Nor in the past have I seen great parodies do this.
If one makes a product as a "parody" and pretends to be the original source, while acting purposely foolishly, I don't think that would be defensible.
For instance, if you are opposed to people eating meat sold by Foster Farms, then making deliberately disgusting meat, and handing it to pedestrians in a city, while making fun of meat, does not constitute parody of Foster Farms. It damages the brand of the original.
A parody would be using Google's names and symbols in some transformative action that is clearly not sourced from Google.