From what I understand, companies are required to defend their trademarks, lest their inaction be used to indicate tacet approval of use in court. More importa

From what I understand, companies are required to defend their trademarks, lest their inaction be used to indicate tacet approval of use in court. More importantly though, they own the trademark and have the right to decide what can be explicitly linked to their brand. Even if the site wasn't making money off of it (to be honest, I'm not familiar with the one in question) the fact that it was using the JD name in a way JD didn't like warrants a C&D. So yes, they could have been nicer, but they were in the right, and I don't think their request was unreasonable.