You seem to be shifting the goal posts. The discussion above is around whether trademark law requires Fluke to take the action they took today. Not whether it's

You seem to be shifting the goal posts. The discussion above is around whether trademark law requires Fluke to take the action they took today. Not whether it's morally right, wrong or what reasons there might be for it or anything else. Just the implication by the poster above that somehow Fluke was forced to do what they did by trademark law. The truth is they are required to "protect" their trademark, but that doesn't require anything like what their actions were today. It's an almost irrelevant and highly misleading statement to throw into the discussion. Just to give an example, they could easily have arranged with SparkFun to allow the goods through but require a sticker be placed on each item identifying that it is not a Fluke product. That would also protect the trademark. If there is evidence that SparkFun is wilfully antagonistic and uncooperative then destroying products seems like a last resort you might arrive at. But before that there are a million different solutions that don't involve destroying and blocking SparkFun products open to both parties.