The extremely wide trademark description is also the problem.
Igmar Palsenberg
2

The wide scope will also increase the change that the court will kick it out. A wide trademark probably won’t hold up in court. It probably will in the US : the money wins. Alone in the EU, I can find at least 10 companies named ‘Kik’. And having a trademark in place doesn’t always mean you won, Apple found out the hard way when the’re trademark was invalidated in Germany. They lost. Bigtime. Against a small company.

While Azer’s reactions might have been out of line, Kik’s was way worst : Threatening legal action and also having his accounts closed. Legal action : OK, they have a reason to do so. Having his accounts closed : That’s not business anymore, that’s a personal attack. And an attack that is way out of line. If you tell the world you’re a professional : Act like one. And suing someone out of business is NOT professional behaviour, it’s ‘Look who has the bigger balls’.

On the second part : Azer did make a proposition. They did not even react to it, but directly took it up with NPM. If the proposition was unrealistic isn’t relevant : They should have acted professional on it. They didn’t.

The the third part : Trademark laws aren’t black and white. They may have a point, they may not. Fact remains that Kik has NO node code, so I at least didn’t expect ‘npm install kik’ to install some messenger stuff. I expected Azer’s stuff to be installed. Even worse : Kik was unknown to me until this series of events popped up. So, according to their own policy : Most EU users probably don’t expect ‘npm install kick’ to install messenger stuff.

And about npm being a commercial party : It was based upon US based assumptions. Kik is non-existent in the .nl (I just asked 20 people, non of them knew kik). They should have stood up for an active developer, instead of directing bending over because kik threatened to lawyer up. I personally would not trust an entity like that with my code.

While I don’t approve on Azer’s choice to remove all his code : He has a right to do so. That does not give anyone the right to undo that. Open source gives you a licensed right to use, it doesn’t grant you ownership. So from that point of view I don’t agree that the code was restored.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Igmar Palsenberg’s story.