They very specifically say you need permission in domains:
"You will require Canonical’s permission to use ... any Trademark in a domain name or URL or for merchandising purposes."
I don't happen to agree with Canonical's behaviour in this respect, or believe it's enforceable.
I do think Canonical's approach was far too heavy-handed, but this case is nothing like ubuntusucks.com (on multiple levels =)).
Isn't law what decides these things? Canonical may be full of hopes and dreams about how they prefer people to behave, but they don't make the laws.
However, the law (or more accurately, judges interpreting the law) get to decide whether it's enforceable.
mikeash: good point.
It respects neither the letter not the spirit of the law, and it makes Canonical look thuggish and crass.
If they want to protect their brand, they could pay a little more attention to the reputational risks of their own behaviour.
It describes under what circumstances they'll send threatening letters and otherwise stamp their feet. Some people are intimidated by that kind of thing. And it can certainly cost you some real time and money dealing with it, and they have more than you.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use_(U.S._trademark_law)
But if you were in his position would you fancy fighting it?
But I don't see anything wrong with protecting a trademark, within reason.
Is obviously bollocks though as by that reading you couldn't have an article about Ubuntu with Ubuntu in the headline without permission if you used article headlines in your sites URLs like every online magazine ever does.
And DVR? Is that like the pirate bay?