Lets think about this for a moment. Is it a legitimate action to pretend to be another party and to damage their brand? What if I take to the streets to pretend to be you, to damage the brand of your start up? What if I defame minorities, release foolish and buggy products, and plaster the pseudo-wares with racist pronouncements? Is it enough for me to say that I disagree with you, and that my intentions are parody, for such action to be pardonable?

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.

I wonder if you looked at the site? It's pretty evident that it's a form of protest and not some racist sockpuppet rant, competitor's defamation or the like. For instance:

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.

Again I don't agree with your very narrow definition of parody. Take http://arcticready.com (from the "Yes Men"). For me, it's a parody criticizing shell oil.

You can also read more here: http://www.greenpeace.org/new-zealand/en/blog/shellfail-insi...

In my opinion this clearly classifies as parody.

One should think of the consequence of a rule in all cases, not just when the rule is applied to defend those that mock those you oppose.

Imagine the same standards being applied when someone is pretending to be you and maligning your name in public with foolish declarations.

Yes of course, I do. Yet, again, I cannot agree with your statement. First, I neither "oppose" Shell nor Google (actually I think Google is a pretty cool company). Still, I find the parody funny and it raises some interesting questions.

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.