You're attempting to "try this in the press" to get them to clarify their policy. In my view what you are doing is worse than what Canonical is doing. But each to their own, I guess.
The way to clarify legal matters is one the following.
1. You do what is reasonable: Remove trademark violations and affirmatively assert that this is not an Ubuntu/Canonical endorsed product; do not link to Canonical repositories; etc. If you are sued, deal with it then.
OR
2. If you wanted to be more cautious, you can sue Canonical for a declaratory judgement on whether a specific action would be infringement. This would also compel an answer.
BUT *asking* a lawyer to clarify already established text such as their "IP Policy" is barking up the wrong tree. Clarification *almost always* weakens rights. They might do it for goodwill ... but it would be naive to count on it and almost infantile (in a business sense) to demand it. A lawsuit (like 2) is, in practice, the only way to force an answer (i.e. to clarify policy).
Perhaps you aren't used to how the law is used in business. The fact of the matter is that if you are afraid of being sued, you have the wrong idea. If you haven't been sued yet ... it is just a sign that you aren't big enough to worry about. When you are big enough ... you should always expect lawsuits.
Re: Comparing to Fedora / Comparing to Red Hat
The way to clarify legal matters is one the following.
1. You do what is reasonable: Remove trademark violations and affirmatively assert that this is not an Ubuntu/Canonical endorsed product; do not link to Canonical repositories; etc. If you are sued, deal with it then.
OR
2. If you wanted to be more cautious, you can sue Canonical for a declaratory judgement on whether a specific action would be infringement. This would also compel an answer.
BUT *asking* a lawyer to clarify already established text such as their "IP Policy" is barking up the wrong tree. Clarification *almost always* weakens rights. They might do it for goodwill ... but it would be naive to count on it and almost infantile (in a business sense) to demand it. A lawsuit (like 2) is, in practice, the only way to force an answer (i.e. to clarify policy).
Perhaps you aren't used to how the law is used in business. The fact of the matter is that if you are afraid of being sued, you have the wrong idea. If you haven't been sued yet ... it is just a sign that you aren't big enough to worry about. When you are big enough ... you should always expect lawsuits.