Back in the day, a C&D was a private affair. As a lawyer, you would give someone the big blast and, right or wrong, you could not really embarrass your client b

Back in the day, a C&D was a private affair. As a lawyer, you would give someone the big blast and, right or wrong, you could not really embarrass your client because you were basically writing to an audience of one. Today, if you screw up on the law or are tone-deaf in how you say things, you and particularly your client will find yourselves on public display as potential objects of ridicule. That is what happened here. Writing a good C&D is an art and it is amazing how much more effective something can be if it communicates truly and well without taking on a needlessly stiff and formal tone. Because, in the end, there is always a purpose behind these things. Trademarks are intended to protect brand origin and if someone who is not the brand owner makes misleading use of a mark to palm off the phony for the real, well, people can understand that and even sympathize with the plight of anyone who has felt ripped off in that way. The art lies in being able to make the legal points without sounding like a bully or an ass. It can be and is done every day when people who are truly infringers do things wrong and find themselves getting slammed. But those C&Ds tend not to find their way into public view. Here, the C&D was absurdly wrong on the law and tone deaf to boot. Kudos to the IMAX and Ars execs for finding a way to handle the thing in the end as a class act and not as a low-brow fight. Speaking even as a lawyer, it is really nice to see.