VC-backed company just killed my EU trademark for a small OSS project

Purpose of trademarks and “commerce”

• Several comments stress that trademarks exist primarily for consumer protection in commercial trade, not as a general right to reserve names.
• Debate over whether OSS at price €0 is “commerce”: some say yes (users still need to avoid confusion), others argue you must show concrete trade (exchanges, revenue, invoices).
• Clarifications that trademarks are limited by class of goods/services and region; multiple unrelated entities can share the same word mark in different classes.
• Concern that if only paid activity counts, that effectively attacks non‑commercial and free services.

OSS, EU “genuine use,” and evidence problems

• Central frustration: EUIPO required proof of “genuine use” in the EU and discounted large but location‑ambiguous download/usage stats.
• People note OSS typically avoids tracking and billing, making it hard to prove EU‑specific use without violating privacy norms or adding analytics.
• Suggestions: use GitHub star locations, billing records (if any), or user attestations as evidence; some say this should be enough, others think the submission quality was weak.
• Broader worry: under these standards, EU trademarks for small FOSS projects may be practically unattainable or very fragile.

Power imbalance and litigation vs. walking away

• Many warn that fighting a VC‑backed company is ruinously expensive, time‑consuming, and psychologically draining; advice is often to rebrand and move on.
• Others argue that “walking away” enables bullying and that someone must push back, even at personal cost.
• Some propose a pragmatic middle ground: sell or license the mark, seek a coexistence agreement, or at least leverage the situation for donations/support.

Did the OSS author escalate the conflict?

• One key thread: the company first sought a coexistence/consent agreement; the author refused without compensation.
• Later, the author opposed the company’s EU filing for their own (similar) name, after which the company pursued cancellation.
• Some commenters frame this as the author “picking a fight” or trying to extract payment; others say defending a mark is required to keep it and thus reasonable.

B Corp / ESG and corporate behavior

• Multiple comments highlight that the company markets itself as a socially responsible B Corp/ESG player.
• Some see a clear mismatch between that branding and aggressive trademark tactics, encouraging complaints to the certifying body.
• Others argue B Corp has become diluted or is mainly virtue signaling, especially for larger or PE‑owned firms.

Systemic critiques

• A recurring theme is that IP and trademark systems structurally favor large, well‑funded entities with better documentation and legal teams.
• Some speculate about EUIPO bias or poor rule‑fit for OSS rather than explicit corruption.
• Suggestions include seeking help from OSS legal organizations, EU petitions, and media exposure to highlight how current rules disadvantage small open‑source projects.