2009/4/23 geni geniice@gmail.com:
"Can a noncommercial critical website use the trademark of the entity it critiques in its domain name? Surprisingly, it appears that the usually open-minded folks at Wikipedia think not."
http://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2009/04/wikipedia-threatens-
While I would regard the title of the article as misleading this is going to be something of a PR problem.
Legally I've not looked at it closely and trademark isn't my thing although there may be potential to annoy everyone by arguing that the well documented existence of the "wikipedia loves art" err brand means there are potential passing off issues.
This is a very interesting case. My layman's view is that their lawyers make some excellent points. Obviously, I haven't seen Mike Godwin's comments on the subject (Wikipedia Art hasn't published them due to not having his permission) and I can't really judge the arguments having only seen one side, but at first glance it seems to be legitimate fair use (or whatever the legal term is).