So, where did you get that these infected machines became a "your thing" and no longer are just Windows (albeit infected/altered)? I don't see the (legal) basis for calling these infected systems no longer Windows systems. If they're still Windows systems, this whole Trademark trick goes pretty much straight out of the window (no pun intended) for that reason alone.
> There's no new precedent here
Unless I'm reading it wrong, Microsoft essentially got itself a verdict that says that something that harms the reputation of their OS actually violates the trademark of that OS. As if their OS getting infected (rather easily) in the first place, isn't enough of a valid reason for a bad reputation.
Just forget for now, about how this also totally ignores that Microsoft probably deserved to have been sued out of existence a long time ago, for (deliberate!) not doing what it could to keep their OS more safe/secure.
Instead, now they pretty much can claim that basically anything that (in their perception) harms their good name and reputation, can be banned from running on their OS (or at least being seized and put under their control). That's the same (il)legal lunacy as currently exists with Apple dictating what can run on their iPhones. I would definitely call that a precedent (I've never heard of such a bonkers trademark case/verdict), and one with an extremely tricky potential for abuse by Microsoft.
It's a good thing that Microsoft has never been caught abusing anything, right.
The quote in the article from the civil complaint makes it sound like the malware itself used MSFT trademarks. If there's another "it" you're reading besides the article, where said quote is shown to be taken out of context, please link.
The car manufacturer / road irregularity analogy does not fit.