I'm not debating what the law is, and I'm not interested in debating what the law is.

I understand that the law mandates the idea of defending ownership of trademarks.

That doesn't change the fact that this is a dumb lawsuit.

Sometimes dumb lawsuits refer to dumb laws underlying them.

These are dog toys, not food products. They don't compete with the food products, and they come with explicit notices on them indicating that they're not affiliated with or produced by the makers of the products they bear some resemblance to.

The fact that there's any question about the legality of these products is a travesty.