1. The subject of the Ars interview that started all of this didn't use IMAX as a "generic name", he likened the experience of using SteamVR to that of having an IMAX screen in your home.
2. IMAX has already apologized and acknowledged that they didn't have a valid argument after all.
2. IMAX has apologized to Ars for giving them a hard time for quoting it. It wouldn't surprise me n the least if they seperately sent a letter to Steam saying 'please stop saying that, even though you meant well.'
No, it is not. Please see Nominative Use (alt: "Nominative Fair Use"), which an affirmative defense that basically boils down to a party being directly allowed to make a competitive comparison between their product/service and another trademarked product/service. This looks like about as textbook a case as it gets too. First, here is the quote:
"It’s like saying, 'I have an IMAX theater in my house,'" he told Machkovech. "It’s so much better that we can get away with a cumbersome setup."
To satisfy Nominative Use:
- Only the minimum amount of the mark necessary can be used, which is certainly the case here, it's just the plain text mark "IMAX" and not the special logo or font or whatever.
- Can't suggest any sponsorship. Also satisfied here, his comparison in no way suggests that IMAX Corporation endorses SteamVR.
- The product/service being compared has to be uniquely identified by the trademark, which is definitely the case here ("IMAX" names a unique technology/experience).
A trademark is for preventing consumer confusion around a specific product/service, not to control all speech, opinions, and competition regarding said product/service. Genericization is an entirely different process. He's not using "IMAX" to refer to VR in general (or at all), he's saying "My SteamVR product is competitive with/superior to the IMAX(TM) Experience" which is entirely permissible and indeed critical for a functioning market. IMAX Corp could of course argue that no, "SteamVR sux IMAX rox" without infringing on his trademark either.
2. IMAX has already apologized and acknowledged that they didn't have a valid argument after all.