Knowing then what you are saying now, I considered replying ("gosh gee-willikers, I had no idea" etc) but knew it was a waste of my time & energy and just ripped up the letter and ignored it. Carlo went through a similar deal with the Vox guy. Meanwhile... there are reoccurring threads with tb buyers of cheap copies making lame justifications ("because it's my money and I'll spend it any way I choose") for companies blatantly manufacturing copies complete with counterfeit logo's. This (that it is criminal) is where I would agree with Ric & Vox attempting to protect their brand - but not over a one-off sorta lookalike that does not have their trademark logo.
There may be value in contacting the lawyers and asking what you are doing to which they object. Some are quite reasonable and explain why they sent the letter. Others don't know why they wrote it and will bluster about
'testing them in court". Not all lawyers are terrible, but there are enough that the reputation of all gets tarnished. Good lawyers will ask what you want to achieve and how much you are willing to spend to achieve that. They will then lay out a strategy - in this case starting with a C&D.
To maintain a trademark, you have to prosecute all infringements, and I suspect that is what is happening - they object to using the name, even if you are saying that it is name-like.
I wholeheartedly agree about the fakes being imported from suspect areas. There has been time, money, and energy invested in producing a recognized good. To produce a "knock-off" dilutes the brand and robs the producer of the good and the owners of the good.
