[flurdy]

Agree. Was about to post the same.

The name was always going to be an issue when the extension got traction and publicity (via HN etc).

And the issues with script injection will always be an issue. But that is not a Legal department decision. They simply will be told to write the C&D letter.

And this letter was the most polite and flexible I have seen. Usually, other companies' C&Ds are totally inflexible, technically inept and unrealistic overdramatic.

Yes, Slack the company (and not the legal department's responsibility) can handle this in different ways. They can reach out and suggest alternatives, they can hire the creator to implement some of the features, they can extend the APIs for more legal interactions, etc. Or they cut him off and "Teflon shoulder" it to their forums as they seem to have done.

Slack's legal department has done their job, and as I can see in the best possible matter once they got told to do so. Up to the company what they do next. If anything.

[dingaling]

> Slack's legal department has done their job

Interestingly Slack's trademark only covers usage of the name for:

'downloadable mobile application'

https://www.trademarkia.com/slack-86639051.html

Which would seem to leave web-based non-mobile scope open.