Two universities in the same city, competing for the same students, are now in federal court over the difference between UIndy and IU Indy.

On August 11, 2026, the University of Indianapolis sued the trustees of Indiana University in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana. The complaint brings claims for trademark infringement, unfair competition and false designation of origin, and trademark dilution. The dispute is about the shortened name IU uses for its Indianapolis campus after the former IUPUI split in July 2024 into IU Indianapolis and Purdue University in Indianapolis.

The University of Indianapolis has registered UINDY in various forms for more than twenty years and says it has used the nickname for close to twenty-four years. IU applied to register IU INDY in February 2024, and a year later, in February 2025, the University of Indianapolis filed an opposition at the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. That is where this started, and the federal lawsuit is the escalation.

Why one letter matters more than people think

Most business owners assume that if a name is not identical, it is fine. That is not the test. The test is whether ordinary consumers are likely to be confused about who is behind the product or service.

UIndy and IU Indy are separated by the position of one letter. The two schools sit in the same city, sell the same thing, and reach the same buyers through the same channels, including apparel worn at sporting events. According to reporting on the dispute, the confusion has already shown up in real life, including misdirected deliveries and prospective students showing up at the wrong campus.

That is the pattern to watch. Similar name plus same market plus same customer equals risk, no matter how small the spelling difference looks on paper.

Three lessons for a small business

Being first is worth something, but only if you claimed it. The University of Indianapolis had a registration going back to 2003. That is why it can bring a federal case instead of arguing about who used the name first. Common law rights exist, but they are harder and more expensive to prove.

Watch what other people file. The University of Indianapolis knew about the IU INDY application because someone was paying attention to the trademark register. Opposing an application before it registers is usually less painful than fighting over a name that has been in the market for years.

Documented confusion is the strongest evidence there is. Mixed up emails, misdirected orders, customers who thank you for someone else’s work. Save it. Screenshot it. That file is what turns a hunch into a case.

What this does not mean

A pending lawsuit is not a decision. Indiana University has not answered these claims publicly, and courts weigh many factors before finding a likelihood of confusion, including how strong the original mark is and how careful buyers are. Nothing here predicts the result.

What it does show is how expensive a naming decision can become after the fact. Both schools have invested in signage, apparel, recruiting materials, and websites. Whichever way this ends, someone spent money on lawyers that could have gone somewhere better.

If your name is close to someone else’s

Run a real clearance search before you print anything. Look at the federal register, at state filings, and at what is actually being used in your market. If you find something close, that is not automatically a stop sign, but it is a reason to get an opinion before you scale.

If you are already in market and something similar shows up, act early. The longer both names are in front of customers, the harder it is to unwind, and the more the fight is about money instead of names.

If you are not sure whether your name is too close to something already out there, book a free consultation and we will run a comprehensive search before you commit to anything. You can also see how our flat-fee trademark application packages work.

Sources: The Indiana Lawyer, “University of Indianapolis sues IU in federal court over use of the phrase IU Indy,” Aug. 11, 2026. IPM News, “What’s in a name? UIndy sues IU Indy, alleging trademark violation,” Aug. 12, 2026. Open Campus, Apr. 9, 2026, for the February 2025 opposition background.

Walk through any online marketplace, and you’ll find no shortage of parody merchandise.

T-shirts that twist famous beer logos. Tote bags that spoof luxury brands. Stickers that turn recognizable company names into punchlines. It’s become an entire category of products, especially on platforms like Etsy, TikTok Shop, and print-on-demand marketplaces.

Many creators assume they’re safe because “it’s obviously a joke.”

But that’s not necessarily true.

In Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc. v. VIP Products LLC, the U.S. Supreme Court made it clear that calling something a parody doesn’t automatically shield it from trademark infringement claims. If you’re using someone else’s trademark to help sell your own product, the legal analysis becomes much more complicated.

If you run a print-on-demand shop, sell novelty products, or build merchandise around memes and pop culture, here’s what you should know.

Update, August 2026: The Ninth Circuit Reversed Again, and VIP Products Won

On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the permanent injunction Jack Daniel’s had won against VIP Products, maker of the Bad Spaniels squeaky dog toy, and sent the case back with instructions to enter judgment for VIP.

The remaining claim was dilution by tarnishment, which asks whether a use harms the reputation of a famous mark. The court held that Jack Daniel’s didn’t carry its burden. Its reasoning had two parts worth knowing.

First, fame is specific. The Jack Daniel’s name and its registered trade dress are famous. But the court found the toy did not portray those marks in an unwholesome or unsavory context in a way likely to damage their reputation, and the evidence that the joke would stick to the famous marks was thin.

Second, parody still counts, just not as a free pass. The Supreme Court held in 2023 that a parody used as a trademark can’t claim the statutory exclusion from dilution claims. The Ninth Circuit read that as leaving room to consider how obvious the parody is when weighing whether tarnishment actually happened. An obvious joke, clearly not from the brand, is less likely to stick to the brand.

What changed for small brands

Less than the headline suggests. If you put someone else’s mark on a product as your own branding, you’re still exposed to an infringement claim, and the free speech shortcut is still unavailable to you after the Supreme Court’s ruling. What this decision says is that the brand owner has to prove real harm to a mark that’s genuinely famous, with evidence, rather than assuming it.

It’s also a reminder of the cost. This dispute has been in the courts for more than a decade, through a bench trial, two trips to the Ninth Circuit, a Supreme Court ruling, and now a second Ninth Circuit decision. The party that “won” spent over ten years doing it. For most small brands, the practical answer is still to build on a name you own rather than one you’re borrowing for the joke.

Case: VIP Products, LLC v. Jack Daniel’s Properties, Inc., No. 25-2027 (9th Cir., decided Aug. 4, 2026). Reporting: Bloomberg Law and IPWatchdog, Aug. 2026.

The rest of this post covers the Supreme Court ruling that set up this decision, and what it means if you sell parody merchandise.

What Happened in the Jack Daniel’s Case?

The dispute centered on a dog toy called “Bad Spaniels.”

The toy was designed to resemble the famous Jack Daniel’s whiskey bottle, but with humorous changes. Instead of whiskey references, the label included dog-themed jokes and bathroom humor.

VIP Products, the company behind the toy, argued that the product was a parody protected by the First Amendment because it was expressive and clearly intended as a joke.

Jack Daniel’s disagreed.

The whiskey company claimed that the toy used its trademarks and trade dress in ways that could confuse consumers and damage its brand.

When the case reached the Supreme Court, the Justices did not decide whether the dog toy actually infringed Jack Daniel’s trademarks.

Instead, they answered a different legal question.

The Court held that when someone uses another company’s trademark as a trademark, meaning as part of identifying or branding the seller’s own goods, the defendant does not automatically receive a special First Amendment shortcut that had sometimes been applied in trademark cases involving expressive works.

The case was then sent back to the lower courts to apply the ordinary trademark infringement analysis.

In other words, simply saying “it’s parody” doesn’t end the conversation.

The Difference Between Commentary and Branding

One of the biggest takeaways from the decision is understanding the difference between commenting on a brand and using a brand to sell your own products.

Imagine a comedian telling jokes about a fast food chain during a stand-up routine.

Or a newspaper publishing an editorial criticizing a well-known company.

Those situations involve commentary.

Now imagine printing a shirt that closely copies a famous logo, changes a few words for humor, and sells thousands of copies because customers instantly recognize the original brand.

That’s different.

The product itself is using another company’s brand identity as part of what attracts buyers.

The closer your product gets to relying on someone else’s trademark to market itself, the more likely trademark law comes into play.

A simple question to ask yourself is:

Am I commenting on the brand, or am I using the brand to sell my own product?

The answer doesn’t automatically determine whether something is legal, but it points you toward the right legal analysis.

Why This Matters for Small Creative Businesses

This decision isn’t just relevant to large corporations.

It’s especially important for:

• Print-on-demand businesses
• Etsy sellers
• TikTok Shop sellers
• Meme creators expanding into merchandise
• Artists selling novelty products
• Small apparel brands

Many entrepreneurs assume that because parody products are common, they must be legally safe.

That’s a risky assumption.

Trademark owners don’t have to sue every seller.

But if your product becomes successful, or simply catches the attention of a brand owner, it can quickly become the subject of a cease and desist letter or lawsuit.

Popularity isn’t a legal defense.

Just because “everyone else is doing it” doesn’t mean the practice complies with trademark law.

This is similar to what we discussed in our article about dupe culture. Selling products that compete with a famous brand is generally allowed. Using another company’s trademark or brand identity to market your own products is where the legal risk often increases.

What Is Still Protected?

The Supreme Court did not eliminate parody.

Parody remains an important form of creative expression.

Genuine commentary, criticism, satire, journalism, artwork, and other expressive works continue to receive strong First Amendment protections.

The Jack Daniel’s decision simply reminds businesses that those protections don’t automatically override trademark law when a trademark is being used to identify or sell commercial goods.

That doesn’t mean every parody T-shirt is illegal.

It doesn’t mean every spoof product infringes someone’s trademark.

Instead, courts generally look at the facts, including whether consumers are likely to be confused about who made, sponsored, or approved the product.

That’s why there isn’t a simple checklist that guarantees a parody is legally safe.

Build Your Own Brand Instead

If you’re building a long-term business, the safest strategy isn’t finding increasingly clever ways to imitate someone else’s brand.

It’s creating one that’s unmistakably your own.

Develop your own name.

Design your own logo.

Create original artwork that customers recognize because of your creativity, not because it resembles someone else’s famous trademark.

Building an original brand gives you something valuable that can grow over time.

It also puts you in a much stronger position to protect your own intellectual property instead of worrying about someone else’s.

The Bottom Line

The Supreme Court didn’t say parody is illegal.

It also didn’t say parody automatically wins.

What the Court made clear is that simply labeling a product a parody doesn’t exempt it from trademark law when someone else’s trademark is being used to sell your own merchandise.

If your product depends on another company’s brand identity to attract customers, you’re taking on legal risk, even if your design is funny.

Before investing in a product line built around parody, spoof logos, or “inspired by” branding, it’s worth understanding where trademark law draws the line.

Have Questions About Your Product Line?

If you’re creating apparel, novelty items, print-on-demand products, or other merchandise inspired by pop culture, don’t assume that “it’s just a joke” will protect your business.

Whether you’re launching a new brand or evaluating an existing product line, we can help you identify potential risks before they become expensive legal problems.

Schedule a free consultation today to discuss your business, your products, and how to build a brand that’s creative, distinctive, and legally protected.