And the name implies there’s a connection. Which is problematic.

Of course, it's because you are not tokenizing it right. It's tik-token.

(Could we say it is kind of a garden-path word?)

It really doesn't. Does every name that has "book" or "face" in the name, imply a connection to Facebook?

Maybe not but Facebooker, Facebooked, Facebocker, and Facebooken all sound like they do.

In none of your examples the resulting words ("booked", "bocker", "booken") are common nouns which also happen to relate directly to the product. It is different for a tokeniser to include "token" in its name.

Which is clearly why they pointed out the use of the whole name of the service in both cases.

I'm aware they both include the full name. That was not the point I was making. Since the difference I was highlighting was unclear:

facebook-ed: Includes the whole name, but nothing else. Obviously bad and not OK.

tik-token: Includes the whole name. Also includes a generic common noun that relates to the product at hand, and is completely fine to include in the name. Appart from that "tik" can not be said to "imply a connection to tiktok". This is fine.

I see "tiktok en" like en.wikipedia.org or microsoft.com/en