But it's not tarnishment. In the BS case, they found that it
wasn't infringement, but that they were using it in a way that would cause reputational damage (also dubious, but sure). Here it would seem the claim that it causes reputational damage is even more tenuous; the food truck is not portraying them in any kind of negative light. In fact, an even better fit is likely the Chewy Vuitton toys[0]:
> While it is true that finding a mark to be strong and famous usually favors the plaintiff in a trademark infringement case, the opposite may be true when a legitimate claim of parody is involved. As the district court observed, "In cases of parody, a strong mark’s fame and popularity is precisely the mechanism by which likelihood of confusion is avoided."
> In a similar vein, when considering factors (v) and (vi), it becomes apparent that Haute Diggity Dog intentionally associated its marks, but only partially and certainly imperfectly, so as to convey the simultaneous message that it was not in fact a source of LVM products. Rather, as a parody, it separated itself from the LVM marks in order to make fun of them.
In the BS case, SCOTUS explicitly noted that parody is a factor in determining confusion and therefore infringement[1]:
> But a trademark’s expressive message—particularly a parodic one, as VIP asserts—may properly figure in assessing the likelihood of confusion ... So although VIP’s effort to ridicule Jack Daniel’s does not justify use of the Rogers test, it may make a difference in the standard trademark analysis. Consistent with our ordinary practice, we remand that issue to the courts below.
And then the ultimate conclusion was that it was not infringement. SCOTUS ruled the lower court had taken an incorrect shortcut, but ultimately the answer (on the infringement question) was the same for basically the same reason.
[0] https://www.ca4.uscourts.gov/Opinions/Published/062267.P.pdf
[1] https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/22pdf/22-148_3e04.pdf