Yes, I suppose you're right. Though how big would one of these need to be for the other to care? I surely could not name my blanket company Microsoft and get away with it, right?

The key issue is over whether or not the mark has a widespread reputation/is well-known. If I am able to show my mark has either, then if someone makes use of a similar/identical mark but for completely different services/goods then I can restrain that other party's use if I can show that their use takes unfair advantage of my mark.

For example if Microsoft Combine Harvesters popped up, it would be relatively straightforward to argue that they are making use of the Microsoft mark for the sole purpose of attracting attention to its product, by effectively piggy-backing on the real Microsoft's reputation.

Proving reputation is difficult but generally you will have to show substantial investment in marketing/advertising in the relevant territories.

If I can't show reputation I am limited to actions for straight infringement (identical mark/identical services/goods) or confusion-based actions (similar mark/similar services/goods).

Interesting. So what is Microsoft Combine Harvesters was founded before Microsoft Corporation yes the latter became larger faster? Even though Microsoft Corp is larger they were also later to the game. Can they try to get exclusive rights to Microsoft?

First user issues aren't as relevant in trade marks as in other intellectual property rights. Potentially you could have two companies in discrete markets/territories build up goodwill in an identical name with a dispute only being triggered when some form of encroachment occurs.

A good example was the Budweiser v Budvar saga http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budweiser_Budvar_Brewery#Tradem...

Generally, you would hope that the parties could come to an agreement and enter what's known as a co-existence agreement where they just agreed to continue but in some cases agree not to further encroach on each other's markets for example.

The above example just ran and ran with each filing suits around the world, showing the difficulties of deciding who should have sole rights to a name when both have built up substantial goodwill over a long period of time.

Very interesting, thanks!

Yes. Think Apple. They weren't the first Apple, and they can't touch other Apple entities that have been around before the existence of Apple (ie. Apple Bank in NY). However, anyone that uses the name Apple, or a logo similar to that of Apple's, after Apple's original use, they can go after.

Side Note: trademark protection is more focused on protecting consumers than companies - unless the company has spent an excessive amount promoting and selling their products, at which point, they are given special protection/rights.

I highly recommend researching the Nissan Motors vs Nissan Computer case, as it covers many subtleties regarding names and trademarks

For more clarity, here's a search on Google Play for Bolt named apps, and their logos. https://play.google.com/store/search?q=bolt&c=apps&hl=en

Possibly. There's a company near me (I see the liveried van trundling around) trading as Apple Property Maintenance.

(I'm amazed The Beatles let them get away with it).