For those who missed a recent episode of Last Week Tonight, John Oliver invited Buc-ee’s to sue him.

During the show’s closing segment, Oliver unveiled “Buc-Off,” a parody of the Texas travel-center chain’s famous beaver mascot, encouraged viewers to buy related merchandise, and openly challenged Buc-ee’s to file a trademark infringement suit. The company reportedly declined.

Buc-ee’s is almost as well known for enforcing its trademarks as it is for its oversized truck stops. In recent years, it has sued businesses using cartoon animal mascots, names ending in phonetic “-ee’s,” and branding it believes too closely resembles its own. Critics call this trademark bullying, but Buc-ee’s would likely describe it as diligent brand protection.

Therein lies a dilemma. Trademark owners are expected to police confusingly similar uses of their marks, while ignoring potential infringements can weaken a brand’s distinctiveness and complicate future enforcement. Companies that have invested heavily in valuable trademarks therefore have strong incentives to act.

But trademark law has limits. Unlike copyright, trademark law does not grant exclusive rights in creative expression. Its central purpose is preventing consumer confusion about the source, sponsorship or affiliation of goods and services. In trademark infringement and dilution cases, courts evaluate multiple factors, including the similarity of the marks, the relatedness of the parties’ goods or services, the strength of the mark and evidence of actual or likely confusion.

Parody complicates that analysis. A successful parody must evoke the original mark while simultaneously signaling that it is not the original. Recognition is essential to the joke, but confusion undermines it. Courts have long recognized this tension. Although parody is not an automatic defense, its humorous and expressive nature often makes consumer confusion less likely.

Oliver’s segment illustrates why. Most trademark parody cases involve defendants selling competing products or otherwise capitalizing on another’s goodwill. Here, the parody itself was the criticism. “Buc-Off” mocked not only Buc-ee’s mascot but also its reputation for aggressive trademark enforcement. Suing over the parody could have reinforced the very point Oliver was making.

That underscores an important practical reality. Trademark enforcement is not only a legal practice, but it is also relevant to general brand strategy. While companies must protect their brands, every enforcement decision carries reputational consequences. Pursuing a high-profile parody may generate publicity that outweighs any courtroom victory.

Buc-ee’s decision not to sue should not necessarily be viewed as a concession that Oliver’s parody was lawful, nor does it affect its ongoing disputes with businesses using allegedly similar branding in competing markets. Instead, the episode demonstrates that effective trademark enforcement requires more than assessing legal claims. It also requires deciding whether litigation advances—or undermines—the interests the trademark is meant to protect. Sometimes, the strongest enforcement decision is not to sue.