> the company who sent the letter loses their trademark and domains.
That may not be punishment enough to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender. In an ideal world the result would cost the directors the right to start a business for a long period of time.
I don't see that as too severe in any light - This is pretty close to fraud: trying to undercut market forces by dishonestly claiming rights to the name of a business with 7 years more history.
Their only defence to malicious intent would be ignorance of the author's business existence prior to theirs - which is completely unbelievable considering that's the first and most obvious fact that will be used to settle the issue. Their lawyers would have to claim complete incompetence.
Its unlikely that their lawyers are completely incompetent. For example King trademarked candy then sent a CaD letter to the makers of the original candy game that they had ripped off - and got away with it.
Unless there are more to the story i think the op can just ignore the letter. And step up the SEO so that the other business will have a hard time competing.
There will always be people that try shortcuts to success by committing fraud. And there will always be suckers that will get fooled. The tactic is often to scare - don't fall for it.
That may not be punishment enough to prevent them from becoming a repeat offender. In an ideal world the result would cost the directors the right to start a business for a long period of time.
I don't see that as too severe in any light - This is pretty close to fraud: trying to undercut market forces by dishonestly claiming rights to the name of a business with 7 years more history.
Their only defence to malicious intent would be ignorance of the author's business existence prior to theirs - which is completely unbelievable considering that's the first and most obvious fact that will be used to settle the issue. Their lawyers would have to claim complete incompetence.