Personally yes. I would not have an issue with that. I do not believe that using a name is not sufficient to say that someone is "representing" that organizat

Personally yes. I would not have an issue with that. I do not believe that using a name is not sufficient to say that someone is "representing" that organization. Certainly not in this case. Even if I did not except your example as acceptable, there is an ocean's difference between a private corporation and a non-profit educational institution. This difference can clearly be seen in how these two classes of organization generally handle themselves. However, since you disagree, consider the following: If instead of using MIT's name for all of these years without permission, they had been using MIT's land (you know, real tangible property) under Massachusetts law that land would now belong to the people using it without permission. Adverse possession kicks in there after 20 years, and as of a few days ago they were using the name for 20 years without permission.