[rectang]

Whether or not legal redress is practical is a separate question. But MangoDB is obviously creating "confusion in the marketplace" and sponging off the goodwill created by somebody else. That's not cool whether it's a commercial entity abusing a FOSS trademark, or the other way around as in this case.

[tssva]

"and sponging off the goodwill created by somebody else."

Aren't they sponging off the ill will created by somebody else?

[evv]

How many fruit-related names are available, anyways? There would surely be a different lawsuit coming their way if they named it AppleDB. (ok, I admit this is a terrible joke)

If "Mango" can get away with it, I think it is very cool to provide a graceful path to open source tech.

I don't have much pity for the $33B company that promotes its mediocre semi-proprietary database to unsuspecting devs/students who don't know better.

[rectang]

It is important to be consistent in the application of the rules. Some of us made a stink about the "Commons Clause" people abusing the ASF's trademark when they were promoting "Apache License 2.0 with Commons Clause" for something incompatible with the Apache License. It would be hypocritical to apply trademark rules for that but not in the case of "MangoDB".

[evv]

Fundamentally I do agree with you. (especially with the mention of "Apache License 2.0 with Commons Clause", which was giving me a headache this morning)

But also I'm not lifting a finger to help companies like MongoDB, unless properly compensated.

Personally I hope that MongoDB does go for a trademark lawsuit, triggering the Streisand Effect. Then Mango can find a better name and attract attention.