Mattel should perhaps be encouraged to remit the fine, but they are not obligated. The suit itself is justified; I have repeatedly found myself applying the standard that goes something along the line of "You seriously expect me to believe that when you named your toy SORT AND SAY that the See'n'Say never once crossed your mind? You seriously expect me to believe you weren't trying to ride the coattails?"

Remember there's an element of deception in trademark infringements, too; this company is in some sense representing itself as Mattel, or Mattel-sponsored, or in some way connected to Mattel. It may not be a fully literal sense, but it's still a real one. When it gets down to it, that's the very meaning of a trademark infringement, which is a large part of the reason I'm much less sympathetic to trademark infringers than people who have problems with the other forms of IP. (When confusion can not occur, and suit is brought anyhow, that's trademark abuse.) Regardless of how sympathetic the company may come off as being, they are lying to their customers for their own gain. Whether or not it was deliberate isn't much of an issue to me; if it wasn't to start with, the proper response is to graciously concede the point immediately. A graduated response may be called for, but not on the basis that this company is somehow behaving entirely morally purely.

I think it was a graduated response. Here's the timeline as I understand it:

- Super Duper registered for a new trademark.

- Mattel tried to stop it through the Trademark Office, and then tried to cancel a few Super Duper's past trademarks that contained "Say" or "And Say".

- Super Duper sued Mattel.

- Mattel counter-sued, for $10m

- Mattel won, again and again

Sometime during this process, Mattel offered to settle by letting Super Duper remove the words "Say" and "And Say" from certain products.

> a company founded to help special needs children.

Are they not after profits like we assume Mattel to be?