[peyton]

Knowing little about trademark law, I'm wondering if you considered trademark dilution [1]. It appears to contradict most of what you've said, e.g. must operate in the same market and prove the offender is profiting.

The rules may be different for famous marks, and Apple's actions could make perfect sense.

[1]: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_dilution

[narcissus]

From the Wikipedia article: "Such trademarks would include instantly recognizable brand names, such as Coca-Cola, Kleenex, Kool-Aid, or Sony, and unique terms that were invented (such as Exxon) rather than surnames (such as Ford or Zamboni) or ordinary words in language."

So in this case, at least, I would think that 'Apple' is an 'ordinary word'.