> Funny enough, I actually know that it's in the context of clothing! Even better, I've spent a non-trivial amount of time dealing with trademark lawyers and getting a better grasp of trademark and patent law in the past several years -- so despite what some people seem to think, I'm not a complete idiot who is just misunderstanding everything.
You made none of that clear in your comment. Your comment read like you think no common words should not be trademarkable, so it would be interesting to know where you think the boundary should be and why it should be there.
> And I still think this is absurd.
We'll, to me, it doesn't seem any more absurd than Apple being able to trademark the word "Apple." The word identifies them in certain narrow contexts, so it makes sense that they can gain the right to prevent others from impersonating them in those narrow contexts, so long as any prior use is respected.
You made none of that clear in your comment. Your comment read like you think no common words should not be trademarkable, so it would be interesting to know where you think the boundary should be and why it should be there.
> And I still think this is absurd.
We'll, to me, it doesn't seem any more absurd than Apple being able to trademark the word "Apple." The word identifies them in certain narrow contexts, so it makes sense that they can gain the right to prevent others from impersonating them in those narrow contexts, so long as any prior use is respected.