Hacker News Reader

not as nice as they were in the case of ilovejackdaniels.com:

http://www.addedbytes.com/blog/what-happened-to-ilovejackdan...

In April of 2008, the people responsible for the Jack Daniel's trademark contacted me and asked me to stop using the name "ILoveJackDaniels", and URL "ilovejackdaniels.com", for my site, and to change the logo.

They asked "Dave" to stop using the trademark and he did. Seems nice to me, unless you have evidence of strong-arm tactics that Dave didn't discuss on that page.

It's definitely not the worst, but I don't think they should have asked him at all, and (more importantly) let him redirect the old site for more than a year.

From what I understand, companies are required to defend their trademarks, lest their inaction be used to indicate tacet approval of use in court.

More importantly though, they own the trademark and have the right to decide what can be explicitly linked to their brand. Even if the site wasn't making money off of it (to be honest, I'm not familiar with the one in question) the fact that it was using the JD name in a way JD didn't like warrants a C&D.

So yes, they could have been nicer, but they were in the right, and I don't think their request was unreasonable.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com