That's not how trademarks work.

15 U.S. Code § 1125 [0]:

    ...
    (3) Exclusions The following shall not be actionable as dilution by blurring or dilution by tarnishment under this subsection:
    
      (A) Any fair use, including a nominative or descriptive fair use, or facilitation of such fair use, of a famous mark by another person other than as a designation of source for the person’s own goods or services, including use in connection with    —

        (i) advertising or promotion that permits consumers to compare goods or services; or
        
        (ii) identifying and parodying, criticizing, or commenting upon the famous mark owner or the goods or services of the famous mark owner.

      (B) All forms of news reporting and news commentary.

     *(C) Any noncommercial use of a mark.*
    ...

Do you know of another section, subsection, or other that would validate your claim?

[0] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1127

This only covers trademark dilution which is one cause of action for trademark infringement, but not the only possible cause of action. Usually trademark dilution is argued when the products are dissimilar. In this case, they are not dissimilar. And as such, this is the regular definition of infringement and is not covered by 15 U.S.C. § 1125(c)(3). It falls distinctly under § 1125(a).

PS - You linked to 15 U.S.C. § 1127, but quoted 1125.

PPS - An overview of the difference between dilution and infringement: http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-trademark-diluti...

Unfortunately HN didn't allow me to edit the comment. 1127 however contains the definition of many terms and I believe the same conclusion can be drawn from them (Trademark does not apply to noncommercial use).

Here is 1125(a):

    (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, *uses in commerce any word*, ...

As such, it does not apply in this situation.

Further, 1125(c)(3)(C) is an exclusion across the entire 1125 subsection (and yes, for dilution, which is what has been argued here).

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125

RE: PPS

Your link says that infringement is a type of dilution. Therefore, no dilution means no infringement.

Also note my other response to this comment: 1125(a) explicitly only includes commercial use.

Again, the US government has only the authority to regulate interstate commerce (ie. trade [hence, trademark]).

That's exactly how it ought to work. I hope this gets noticed despite you being so heavily down-voted (and flagged... wtf?). I'd like to see it get properly refuted if it's not true.

That's a gross misunderstanding of the Constitution. Some very simple searching lands you at this page, which has some helpful information about trademarks, how to pick one, and how to enforce it. Properly enforced, trademarks are a source of financial stability for entrepreneurs, and it is entirely in the realm of the US government to regulate them. http://www.uspto.gov/trademarks-getting-started/trademark-ba...

Intellectual property is still intellectual property, even if a non-profit is using it. Your argument would allow any nonprofit to use the trademarks of any business in the United States, which is clearly neither good for entrepreneurs nor legal.

Nonprofits are typically engaged in commercial activity.

If this comment isn't a troll, it's epsilon from it. We don't need to litigate the Constitution; a simple Google search for [trademark noncommercial] will suffice.

> Non-commercial use cannot be prevented, except if that use harms the distinctiveness of the trademark

That is clearly the case here.

Clearly not. HyperTerm is a portmanteau of the underlying tech.

> portmanteau

a large trunk or suitcase, typically made of stiff leather and opening into two equal parts.

You missed the next one:

>consisting of or combining two or more separable aspects or qualities.

I recommend the Wikipedia article [0] as well. Here is a snippet:

>A portmanteau (Listeni/pɔːrtˈmæntoʊ/, /ˌpɔːrtmænˈtoʊ/; plural portmanteaus or portmanteaux /-ˈtoʊz/) or portmanteau word is a linguistic blend of words,[1] in which parts of multiple words, or their phones (sounds), and their meanings are combined into a new word.[1][2][3] The word "portmanteau" comes from the French for overcoat stand (porte manteau), where many coats may be placed on top of coats that are already on the stand, which continues to function as a coat stand.

>A portmanteau word fuses both the sounds and the meanings of its components, as in smog, coined by blending smoke and fog,[2][4] or motel, from motor and hotel.[5] In linguistics, a portmanteau is defined as a single morph that represents two or more morphemes.[6][7][8][9]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portmanteau

HyperTerm appears to be a Hypertext Markup Language Terminal.

Wait, are you saying that hyperterm is a criticism of or commentary on hyperterminal?

"criticism of or commentary on" != "criticism, commentary, news reporting and other forms of noncommercial expression"

No. Where did you see (or think you saw) me say that?