So are "apple", "time" and "caterpillar", yet they are all federally registered trademarks whose holders have successfully prosecuted others for their use. Being a common word is not an absolute barrier to trademark protection.

But those are huge and well-established brands; using their names is likely in some cases to cause confusion amongst consumers. Preventing such confusion is, as far as I'm aware, the goal of trademark law.

Moot-the-person on the other hand is quite obscure; nobody knows who he is or associates the word "moot" with him other than a small handful of people in one online community. I.e. it's not a well-established brand, and using the word isn't likely to cause confusion or mis-association for the general public.

To the general public, no, but in this case the product is similar to 4chan, so users may be confused. If Moot.It had sold server hardware instead, I'm sure there would be no valid case.

The website isn't called Moot, though. That's where I see it being a grey area.

but is 'moot' trademarked?

You don't necessarily need to register a trademark in order to defend it (although you do need to defend it once it's registered unless you want to risk using it).

From Wikipedia:

> In the United States, neither federal nor state registration is required to obtain rights in a trademark. An unregistered mark may still receive common law trademark rights. Those rights, for example, may extend to its area of influence—usually delineated by geography. As such, multiple parties may simultaneously use a mark throughout the country or even state. An unregistered mark may also be protected under the federal "Lanham Act" (15 USC § 1125) prohibition against commercial misrepresentation of source or origins of goods. Unregistered marks are also protectable in the United States under Lanham Act §43(a).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unregistered_trade_mark

So is "Apple"