The right to use that name in a certain context. Kik was a dick. 30k is a lot, but lawyers would’ve cost way more than that

An initial consult is often free, and even a $500 consult would have been worth every penny because the lawyer would have (correctly) told him to back off and let them have the name.

In any event, escalating - even when you think the other party is being a dick - is never the right answer.

When I was sued I was able to get an hour with many of the initial attorneys I called. The biggest challenge in most cases was ensuring there were no conflicts.

And as an attorney, if I go back into practice someday, of course I’ll do the same.

I have a hard time seeing your position here. Because of their actions they broke their own build and made a lot of folks in the open source community upset. Was it even worth it to waste the time fixing their broken build? To investigate the failure and replace a dependency of a dependency? To lose credibility in the community they've evidently just decided to become involved with? I really don't see how that's not worth 30 grand. They have a right to use their name but they don't have the right to use someone else's work.

It is a principle of American and English law that the person who uses someone else’s property unlawfully is responsible for the foreseeable injuries caused to others by its use - not the lawful owner of the property.

You are being downvoted because you fundamentally misunderstand and mischaracterise the situation you are referring to.

I am referring to naming an npm module “Kik” that has nothing to do with the service of the same name. What do I misunderstand?