IANAL, and I don’t own the trademark, but with your clarifications and updates, I believe you’re probably not violating the trademark (IMO).

It’s good to see someone who is willing to accept such feedback (rather than digging in your heels for a while, like happened with the aforementioned fork).

Thank you, i updated the home page

@rafaello said:
Thank you for the tips! I mention about it here:

The “SECURITY.md” / reporting-a-violation section is not really the best place to have that notification. It should be front and center on the main README and any public advertisements like this one.

This repository does not contain the official release version of Notepad++. It is a modification that does not alter the source code! All changes have been made to publicly accessible files and do not affect hidden, unreadable, or binary files.

This is a bundle, not the source code modification.

That needs to be made abundantly clear, in the front page, the advertisements, and in the product name.

I also mentioned that Don Ho is the author and I mentioned his e-mail.

That’s not sufficient, as you can still violate trademark, even with acknowledging the author.

I would highly recommend at least the following actions:

• Instead of calling it a “version” of Notepad++, call it a “bundle” that includes the original, unmodified Notepad++ binaries
• “Bundle” should really be in the name, so that people know they are getting Notepad++ and some extras
• Put your notification on the front page, not buried deep in an unrelated page about security.

@PeterJones said:

if all you were doing was distributing the official Notepad++ binaries, along with customized configuration files (new themes, custom toolbar icons using the XML file to congifigure that, and so forth) and pre-bundling the plugins you noted, then giving it a name like “My Awesome Notepad++ Bundle”, it would probably be allowed

Thank you for the tips! I mention about it here:

This repository does not contain the official release version of Notepad++. It is a modification that does not alter the source code! All changes have been made to publicly accessible files and do not affect hidden, unreadable, or binary files.

This is a bundle, not the source code modification. I also mentioned that Don Ho is the author and I mentioned his e-mail.

Be careful using the Notepad++ trademark without permission. It is a registered trademark in France, and even when not registered, 20+ years of exclusive use of the trademark have given a strong common-trademark status to Notepad++. Recently, the person who tried to claim their fork of the code (with huge changes to make it work in Linux) was “Notepad++ for Mac” was recommended to rename, and when he ignored it, the Developer demanded it.

The source code is open and free to use. The “Notepad++” trademark is not. Do not confuse the one with the other.

I highly recommend a rename/rebrand of your forked product.

update: see https://github.com/notepad-plus-plus/notepad-plus-plus/issues/17982 , and related discussions. the Developer takes the Notepad++ trademark seriously.

Update 2: if all you were doing was distributing the official Notepad++ binaries, along with customized configuration files (new themes, custom toolbar icons using the XML file to congifigure that, and so forth) and pre-bundling the plugins you noted, then giving it a name like “My Awesome Notepad++ Bundle”, it would probably be allowed (because open source licenses allow distributing the unmodified product under the original name, so a bundle that includes the official Notepad++ could presumably advertise that it’s included…). But if you’re making your own changes to the Notepad++ source code, and distributing it as a separate product, you would need permission to use the trademark.

Um… I don’t think you can call it “Awesome Notepad++”.
You should read the documentation for derived works.