In other words, it'll basically only apply to the things they do with it, and to any products/services which could be confused for those things.
> (a) Civil action
> (1) Any person who, on or in connection with any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or any combination thereof, or any false designation of origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or misleading representation of fact, which—
> (A) is likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or association of such person with another person, or as to the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods, services, or commercial activities by another person, or
> (B) in commercial advertising or promotion, misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person’s goods, services, or commercial activities,
> shall be liable in a civil action by any person who believes that he or she is or is likely to be damaged by such act.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125
This is because trademark law is a consumer protection law first and foremost, as opposed to being a property law like copyright and patent laws are. This is also why you can lose trademarks so easily: If you're not using it and defending it, it's presumed you don't care, so nobody's going to confuse an active trademark with a defunct one.
https://www.apple.com/legal/intellectual-property/trademark/...
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6975459
Apple Computers won the litigation, but I'm not entirely sure why. The Beatles kept their albums off of iTunes for years because of it.
Arhive.org's snapshot of Wikipedia's source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20131021094116/http://www.lottie...
Relevant fragment:
>The main aspect of the GUI was to use graphic metaphors for objects like computer programs and documents. Another man working with the computer scientists was a Graphic Designer called Norman Cox. He was responsible for designing a series of icons to make basic operations of the computer visible as actual objects. Merzouga Wilberts also came up with the concept of WIMP (windows, icons, menus and pointers). These interface objects create a feeling of familiarity and consistency for the user enabling a particular message to be conveyed. However, the technology was not yet available to develop the ‘Xerox Star’ and the management at Xerox was not willing to invest any funds into the project as they did not see it as a marketable product. This was a big mistake!
So looks like Charlotte Booth in that relatively modern article meant concept of the WIMP, not terminology.
It's an interesting thought, but IMO, it seems less likely than Mary's suggestion.
"Mod," as in "modification" (whether in gaming specifically, or software in general), is an extremely common and borderline generic word that is unlikely to be granted as a trademark. It would be the equivalent of Coca-Cola's trying to trademark "soda" or "soft drink."
On the other hand, "Mod," as in "Modern" or "Modular," for the name of a UI or OS seems at least somewhat novel. I can't think of too many software products using the word "Mod" in that context. This is a usage that would actually stand a chance at being granted as a TM.
Like game mods and the modding community?
Seems far, far more likely than Mary's suggestion, guess she's not into gaming.
Also how can they file a trademark on a common computing term like mod?