>> That's just the trademark part of the argument.

> It does stick out because they are discussing a breach of the settlement agreement
> they were not party to.

They are also discussing a breach of the settlement agreement in the copyright part of the complaint:

"16. The Settlement Agreement did not grant to Defendant any right in any AMIGA software created or distributed prior to 1994.
[...]
24. Upon information and belief, section 2 of the Settlement Agreement did not intend to expand the grant of rights to Defendant by allowing Defendant to market, license or sublicense Amiga OS 3.1. [...]
[...]
30. Defendant’s copying, distribution and sale of Plaintiff’s Kickstart 1.3 also constitutes a breach by Defendant of the Settlement Agreement."