There are many areas of law, not just the "Big Three" in IP of copyright, trademark, and patents.

They are certainly similar enough to be identified as their intended brands, so you've got copyright, trademark, trade dress, dilution by blurring, dilution by tarnishment, unfair competition, unfair or deceptive practices, making an association with a famous mark, false designation of origin, false descriptions, and more besides.


What is the cost to change them? Perhaps an hour of work? $20? $50?

What is the cost of a lawsuit? Even a Cease and Desist order is going to cost hundreds of dollars to make sure you resolve properly, plus they'll demand you change the logos.

Note how in BOTH cases you end up changing the cans. The only difference is one situation involves lawyers.

You can also leave them and accept the risk. But if you start to succeed or become successful or become popular, sooner or later you'll get a knock at the door demanding you to sign for receipt of a legal document.

About the only thing that is nearly always accepted as fair use is nominative use, using the thing's name. Saying "this is Pepsi" is not a violation because that is the name. Doing much more than that is often a costly idea.

If the only people who will ever see it are you and your best friends, the risk is approximately zero. ... Except you've already gone and posted it on the Internet, which has billions of viewers and never forgets. Oops!

Fair use is a local legal concept and varies by location. Even in the same location judges evaluate it differently. It is expensive to get wrong, and easy to get right by simply not using other people's ideas and properties.

Personally, I like to get all righteous against the ever creeping scope of IP laws that stifle fair use, so I'd say go for it and damn the man! But sensibly, it's a good risk reduction strategy to avoid this altogether... :(

If the only people who will ever see it are you and your best friends, the risk is approximately zero. ... Except you've already gone and posted it on the Internet, which has billions of viewers and never forgets.
Oops!

As long as you poke fun at the product, you can use names with similar likeness to original product under fair use of parody.

I'm not sure why I am getting downvotes on my post which is factual.

No, it is wrong.

Parody is an exception, that is true, but parody has a very specific meaning.

Parody can use satire, parody can use insults, parody can use comedy, parody can use sarcasm. Parody can be truthful, fanciful, or fiction. But those things are not parody, parody uses them.

Courts have issued many rulings about the parody defense. Key details are that the parody MUST give a new political, farcical, ironic or similar meanings to the elements being parodied. That is, if you simply show an object it is not parody, you must actually produce a message about the thing.

Including a brief cameo of Mario is not a parody, but showing Mario as the evil invader to Bowser's kingdom has he is doped-out on mushrooms, killing citizens of the Koopa Kingdom, and facing the full military might of the Koopa Kingdom all while the princess is trying to negotiate peace, that is a proper parody.

The movies by How It Should Have Ended are parody as they generally present the characters doing something that would have fit in the story but radically altered it in farcical ways. They have had to modify and re-release a few of their clips because those segments were not a parody, but they have lawyers advising them and are quick to fix issues.

This is not a parody of Pepsi or Coke or Dr Pepper or the rest. The cans do not present any message about the brands. They do not present a political message, such as how they are a blight on society, or how they rot teeth, or something ironic or farcical like claiming they strengthen teeth and bones, or having a character talk about how they are good for you but then suddenly have the character suffer from rotten teeth.

What was described is not a parody.

So on a side note this would not be a parody unless the game is about sodas.

Just as a primer on parodies:

A parody is a work that needs the original work to be relevant. For example any of the "scary movies" or "vampires suck" type movies. The movie wouldn't have the same point without the original works they make fun of.

Similar to a parody is a work of satire. A satire is a work that uses copyrighted work to relay another focus. For example if some one wrote a book using the harry potter characters but made them all super communist to make a statement about capitalism or something (I'm making this up here). The focus in this work is about capitalism and it doesn't "need" harry potter to make its point.

The point being parodies are completely within the realm of fair use. Satires are not and are infringement without the proper licenses. The line between the two is not black and white, but this is what courts may generally follow.

For your cans just mix up the name, color, and style and you should be fine. For example the cola, with the red can, and swooping letters. For example make the can blue and the letters like your yellow can's and you would be completely safe. This would require less creative original design but should make you safe enough.

As mentioned you should always contact a licensed lawyer if you want actual legal advice.

Also,

Fair Use wiki excerpt:

Fair use is a US legal doctrine...While U.S. fair use law has been influential in some countries, some countries have drastically different fair use criteria to the U.S., and some countries do not use a fair use framework at all. Some countries have the concept of fair dealing instead of fair use, while others use different systems of limitations and exceptions to copyright.

Do not assume that you are in any way protected by fair use especially if you are based outside of the US as fair use may not even exist.