A better analogy - fans pay an artist up front to record an album, said artist then uses the resulting success to produce a different genre of music for a major label under an exclusive contract.
Band wants to release music. Have a sucessful kickstarter and release an exciting first album to backers. Everyone is excited.
Band then signs to a label that won't let people listen to the music without signing in to a social network first, and who will post "Joe Bloggs likes Band!" on your wall, and who only let you listen to the music in their app.
The funny thing is, every major game company does exactly that. Want to play this offline, single-player game? Well, let's first create an account in our service, so we can enhance our experience! Wow, you collected your first item! Here's an achievement that will show up on all of your friends' feeds, along with how long you've been playing. Surely you want to announce to the world you spent your last twenty hours playing Lawnmower Simulator 2014? Hey, how about we add a button to your controller to make it even easier to share videos with all our friends?
>All this litigation via social media is happening exactly because these are small companies that don't have the resources to litigate via the courts.
No, it's because they want free publicity for their application. Someone with a history of not wanting to work with people to settle trademark issues (see smm2000's post) isn't doing it on principle. Trademark law is nowhere as time-consuming or unapproachable as you make it out to be.
A better approach would have been to deport Khobragade while still offering protection/visas to the servant and her family. Quite a few Indians have been arrested on similar charges in the past without serious uproar, it's the fact that a consular official was treated this way. The US tends to be rather lax in its definition of "diplomatic immunity" when it comes to their benefit (see Raymond Davis) so such strictness is very hypocritical. The impression I get as a neutral observer is that the focus of the action was to punish the alleged guilty rather than try and achieve recourse for the alleged victim.
