I think they can call it whatever they want really. The company they mimic is the only one that should get involved. It's nobody else's business really...I think.
Well, again, it isn't quite. I mean, suppose that you open a business in real life, and so does a competitor, and they start advertising their products with images from the latest Hollywood blockbuster, but without getting permission. They take your customers away, and you're likely to go out of business, but the owners of the blockbuster movie just think they're small potatoes and turn a blind eye, so there's no blame. The only thing you can do to compete is to pick another big studio and violate _their_ copyright yourself, and if it happens that the studio you picked _do_ decide to sue, you'll have to face that... Does that sound even vaguely like how it ought to work?
If it did work that way, we'd have many small companies violating copyright on famous IPs on the offchance that they might sneak under the radar and get a lucrative marketing bonus for free.
I sell my product because of my product's high quality standards, my marketing strategy and ad placement, and the overall quality of my studio and sample work. To claim the name Nikon is boosting my sales and decreasing other peoples' sales is stretching. And no...my 'marketing strategy' is not "steal a big brand name."
Well, I understand what you're saying, and I can't possibly prove that the name affects your sales. But I think the main counter-argument is, if using the Nikon name isn't a good business strategy for you, then why would you be doing it - given that it *is* kinda risky?
