The article does start out with slanted language to give a false impression, although most of that is in the incredibly misleading quotes by OK Go band members.

The article does start out with slanted language to give a false impression, although most of that is in the incredibly misleading quotes by OK Go band members. However, even your own retelling is misleading in the other direction, leaving the impression that OK Go is keeping this hanging over the poor company's head: OK Go apparently threatened to sue Post ("Post said OK Go had been quietly threatening to sue for months, claiming that the company had infringed the trademark rights to the band’s name by launching the new on-the-go packages earlier this month.), but didn't actually do so. But if you look later in the article, you see that this whole thing came to a head only 1 week after their last failed negotiation attempt: But the food company says OK Go rejected that offer last week and made no counter-proposal, leaving Post with no choice but to file a lawsuit. Citing a “clear threat of potential litigation" So there's no real fire here in either direction; in fact there's no actual story at all. This is just standard procedure that you'd expect to see in any trade mark dispute, done in a regular orderly fashion (hyperbolic PR sound bites notwithstanding).