Alas, that's not how it works for trademark law, or common courtesy. The relevant standard is whether use is likely to confuse.
By calling this "Jonathan's Card 2.0", and their explicit references, they're clearly trying to portray this as an official successor from the same agent(s). If Jonathan Card "1.0" cared about this, he could object on both legal and ethical grounds.
Comments
Alas, that's not how it works for trademark law, or common courtesy. The relevant standard is whether use is likely to confuse.
By calling this "Jonathan's Card 2.0", and their explicit references, they're clearly trying to portray this as an official successor from the same agent(s). If Jonathan Card "1.0" cared about this, he could object on both legal and ethical grounds.