Sage have quietly sent legal notice requesting the removal of the Sage logo from at least one unofficial LinkedIn Group. This notice was sent through LinkedIn and bears the return address of Sage legal in North America. LinkedIn appears to have the power to de-activate any non-compliant group within three days as outlined by the legalese on their official notification.
LinkedIn has received the attached Notice of Content and Intellectual Property Violations submitted to us pursuant to our Notice and Procedure for making Claims Regarding Content and Intellectual Property Violations. We request that you immediately remove the infringing content identified in the Notice. If you don’t take action three business days from the date of this email, we will remove or disable access to the allegedly infringing, inaccurate or unlawful content identified in the Notice pursuant to our Procedure.
Is this only selectively being enforced against groups which Sage would like to censor or more greatly control the messaging?
Why are there other seemingly un-affiliated groups where the Sage logo usage continues? (shouldn’t a takedown notice sent around the same time requesting compliance within 3 days have gotten rid of those logos?).
UPDATE: Opps – looks like Snowdrop KCS is somehow owned by Sage UK — and apparently hasn’t even had to deal with any type of Sage re-branding. Maybe all these other oddball companies using the Sage logo are owned by Sage too? Odd.
Companies have the right to protect their logo. They have the right to protect their trademarks and copyrights. That’s not what I’m questioning.
My question is why isn’t the protection being equally applied to any unaffiliated group on LinkedIn found using the Sage logo? A simple search through groups using the keyword “Sage” uncovers plenty of seemingly unofficial examples like this, this, this, etc