Some googling and brief dives into etymological references are suggesting to me that the original usage is more common in Canada and the UK than the US.
> Regardless, that's somewhat irrelevant: "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions. (Even a quick glance at the search results of e.g. HN comments with the term "moot" confirms this.)
Eh, I think you're overgeneralizing from your own perspective here (and searching HN to back yourself up is only magnifying, not mitigating, that effect). There's an awful lot of English-speaking internet out there beyond the bubble that wouldn't know 4chan from foursquare.
> Whether or not "moot" should be a trademark is largely philosophical and not a debate I feel like putting any energy into. However, that moot can be a trademark even if it's a "common" word seems obvious at this point.
I don't disagree. But note that it's Chris Poole's lawyer who's claiming that Moot can't be used as a trademark on the basis that Chris Poole and his screen name are so famous that they're entitled to Right of Publicity protection under New York law, which strikes me as stretching that law rather past its original intent (is Rand Corporation violating Paul Rand's Right of Publicity? Does Richard Gere have a case against Top Gear?).
4Chan has 22 million uniques per month and a million posts per day [1], and seems to be referenced regularly on all of the other "big" online forum sites. And, when Time gave in and acknowledged the poll results for Christopher Poole as their most influential person of the year, they referred to him first as "moot" and the stunt picked up coverage in mainstream publications like the LA Times [2].
So, I think you may be underestimating 4Chan's influence. But, I'll concede that I may be overestimating it as well.
[1]: http://www.4chan.org/advertise [2]: http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/technology/2009/04/4chan-tim...
That's completely wrong. The majority of the world doesn't know who Moot is. The majority doesn't even know what 4chan is, even if they do start most of the internet memes.
If I asked my mom what "moot" meant, she'd probably tell me something like "something that's no longer relevant or worth arguing about". Using HN comments as a confirmation tool is equally ridiculous. We are not the right community to use when determining the legal usage of a phrase.
While each of the common names your have listed are trademarks, they are trademarks within their respective fields. It would be completely appropriate for me to start a watch shop and call it "Time" (assuming there isn't already a national or state trademark of watch shops called "Time").
Moot is an online persona, not a product. I'm not familiar with New York state law on "public rights of publicity", but I'm pretty sure that he doesn't have exclusive rights to the word "Moot".
This would be like Tom from MySpace suing Tom's shoes or TomTom. (Okay, not quite because the company is working on forum software which is close to 4chan, but it's not far off).
Unless you're prepared to argue that the majority of the world uses online discussions or talks about online discussion systems, or that a conversation with your mom is a suitable anecdote when talking about online discussions, I think you should reconsider just how "completely wrong" my argument was.
Because, you're right, the examples I cited are trademarks within their respective fields, and that was the entire point of my comment.
I apologize for not making that more clear.
This all seems like a big-fish, small-pond vs. small-fish, medium-pond argument to me.
Moot maybe incredibly influential in his corner of the 'net, but the larger world probably doesn't know him. Moreover, the brand of his product isn't "moot", it's 4chan. To top it off, "moot" isn't a rare word, it's a commonly used word in English. All of this combines to make it very difficult for him to try to make any direct claims against Moot.it.
To suggest that a person owns a dictionary definition of a word that predates their existence by ~800 years[1] smacks of hubris
[1] OED
Keep in mind that UPS has successfully trademarked a color, as have many other companies; "Apple" is a trademark, "Time" is a trademark, "Shell" is a trademark, "Caterpillar" is a trademark ... and odds are, as you read each of those common words, you knew exactly which company holds the trademark.
Whether or not "moot" should be a trademark is largely philosophical and not a debate I feel like putting any energy into. However, that moot can be a trademark even if it's a "common" word seems obvious at this point.