>Yes, I understand your POV. Coming from a giant against little UT, yes, that could be seen out of scale. It can also be difficult to understand that such an image, which could help the exposure of a product, could harm their image. But, as good as it gets, as a business owner, I prefer to remain within boundaries that won't create any legal issue. Of course, we did it because we thought we were doing something ok and that would have brought additional benefits to the community. But, it was brought later to our attention that it was not the case as specific issues were related to that. So, for us, the main line is to focus on the support engine. If such a little issue is not welcome, we'll just drop it as we have something else more important to deal with.

I own a franchising company in the mid-west US. When my partner and I bought the company, we were both really un-initiated in the franchising world and really had an eye-opening experience.

The first thing the franchise attorney literally drilled into our heads was the importance of guarding our registered trademarks. One of the best examples of a product being 'helped' by this type of generalizing comes from the Johnson & Johnson companies. After several years of allowing the term Band-Aid to be used to refer to plastic bandages, J&J could no longer protect that registered trade-mark any longer... it had become too much a household name. Thus, several other companies were able to manufacture bandages using the name Band-Aid for them.

Of course, I do wonder from time-to-time whether or not the 'Band-Aid' police would have knocked on your door and waited for you to cut yourself just to see if you would run to the medicine cabinet and put on band-aid made by another company. What would they do? Chastise you for calling just another bandage a 'Band-Aid'?<g>

Marty