No, it is not spam, and I am not related to them other than I like using their mail merge tool for the last 10 years at most of my customer sites. I have many Lotus Notes customers and they all ask me the same thing and to be frank it's gotten quite annoying. They want to perform mail merges to e-mail messages from Lotus Notes without using any code or programming. They search the internet and find solutions for the most-part that requires programming. They are non-technical users, so not coders and do not know how to use Domino Designer client which is required to create and maintain LotusScript agents.
I re-posted it again since they can easily find it, rather than getting confused and spending much time reading how to mail merge in Lotus Notes using coding and Domino Designer.
The Notes 9 forum contains no mention of mail merging to emails at all which I found strange. Mail merging is a basic function and it should be promoted to prevent customers from complaining of yet another reason they should migrate to a competitor messaging platform.
Now, as for your mention of a post from 11 years ago which is hilarious by the way... That seems like a disgruntle marketing person who doesn't like people using their competitor products. LOL. I just researched that posting myself in terms of both the companies mentioned, and see that the WIPO (internet arbitration and mediation center) denied the complaint as false.
FYI
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Mk-Net-Work v. IVE Technologies
Case No. D2004-0302
7. Discussion and Findings
A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Complainant states that it is the proprietor of a trademark registration. However, it has submitted a certificate of a trademark application in France. At the time of rendering its decision, the Panel checked the status of this trademark. It appears that the application is still pending. As held consistently by Panels, a trademark application is not in itself sufficient evidence of a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, since applications are often opposed or may be refused for lack of distinctiveness. The only types of right that amount to trademark rights are, in addition to registered marks, unregistered or common law trademark rights.
Pending trademark applications have been regarded as evidence that the Complainant has generated goodwill in a mark which it wishes to protect. Combined with other information about the use and renown of the alleged mark an application can be relevant to a panel finding common law trademark rights (see for example Worldblackbelt, Inc. v. Nationwide Communications, eRes Case No. AF-0881 (August 2, 2001), Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. Steven S. Lalwani/Bennett Coleman & Co Ltd v. Long Distance Telephone Company, WIPO Case No. D2000-0014 and The David J. Joseph Company v. Richard F. Barry, WIPO Case No. D2000-1418).
In the present case, Complainant has only provided evidence that it uses <notes-compression.com> as a domain name for a website on which information regarding its product ZipMail is provided. The website address “www.notes-compression.com” is mentioned in advertisements about ZipMail. This is not evidence that the domain name is actually used as a trademark, in order to distinguish certain goods or services, which might generate unregistered trademark rights.
This means that the Panel does not accept that the Complainant has demonstrated any unregistered rights in the trademark for which it made an application in France.
B. Rights or Legitimate Interests: Registered and Used in Bad Faith
Based on the above, the Panel concludes that Complainant did not prove that it has rights in a trademark. Given this finding, it is unnecessary for the Panel to consider whether the Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and whether the domain name of Respondent is registered and used in bad faith.
8. Decision
For all the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2004/d2004-0302.html