Unfortunately, if you care about trademark or just simple copyright infringement (I haven't checked what license is Notepad++ under), they might need to enlist a lawyer sooner rather than later.
In the U.S. its only covered by common-law trademark rights from long use, as there’s no federal registration.
The trademark is still in active use for Notepad++ though. That’s not squatting.
The port just can’t use the trademark. Call it something else.
There's demand for Crystal Pepsi but you can't go make a new soft drink yourself and call it Crystal Pepsi. If you want to say you are Pepsi, you have to be the Pepsi.
Pepsi isn't abandoned but Crystal Pepsi was close to having been. Thanks though, I wasn't aware you could still buy Pepsi lol.
Accurate description is not at all what the legal issue is about.
just like pepsi bottle crate is a crate for bottles of pepsi
You can clone someone's project without pretending to be them. They literally put his bio up. Call it something else, put your own bio up.
...crediting him as the author of the original, not the mac port.
without commenting on anything to do with trademarks, in what way is that even slightly pretending to be him? why would they put another, separate bio alongside as the person doing a mac port if they were intending to masquerade as the original author?
If the "author" of this port respected Don Ho enough to credit him in the contributors section of his project, why doesn't he respect Don Ho enough to comply with the request to take down the violations?
This conflict indicates that the respect was never there, and thus the motivation for the bio was probably credibility laundering.
(Which is his right and no permission to do anything)
> For context: I received an email from Andrey Letov on April 8, 2026, informing me that he had just ported Notepad++ to macOS, and ask for contact, without providing further info.
So no asking to use trademarks beforehand, and no asking Don if it's okay to include him on the contributor page for the violating software.