[traskjd]

One of the issues in TM law is that if you don't defend it, folks can claim you're not using it.

Leads to perverse outcomes at times, especially in orgs big enough to have folks full time employed looking at such matters.

[Edit: I'm not saying this is good. Yes, cooler heads should prevail. I'm explaining what can lead it to occurring when it seems nonsensical.]

[SOLAR_FIELDS]

There are polite ways to go about enforcing this though. The Jack Daniel’s incident comes to mind: https://mashable.com/archive/jack-daniels-trademark-letter

[selectodude]

Jack Daniels is currently embroiled in a Supreme Court case over dog toys, so I'm not sure they remember the old ways anymore.

https://apnews.com/article/supreme-court-jack-daniels-dog-to...

[vlovich123]

Isn’t the trademark unenforceable in that case because Jack Daniel’s the drink and the book are in totally different markets and trademarks only apply if you’re competing in the same space.

[jonny_eh]

There is a limit though. Always consider "how would this look in front of a judge". There should be a cost paid for being overly litigious in this regard.

[unyttigfjelltol]

It's more like Xerox probably sort of liked that people viewed them as interchangeable with the act of photocopying, but eventually this had textbook consequences for their ability to prevent people from using their name for things they didn't like.

I personally would have suggested offering you a license to use the web address, but for whatever reason that ilk of lawyers prefer antisocial methodologies.

[jasonladuke0311]

Give the history between the assumed parties, I doubt founder would be trying to take that domain name. He lost a lot in court already