[Symmetry]

Trademark are always about use in a particular context. Apple has a a trademark on computers using the name "Apple" even though that's been a word for a food for centuries. And if you want produce a line of bulldozers and brand them "Apple Bulldozers" you can do that and get your own trademark on the use of the word "Apple" in that context.

[voakbasda]

I really would like to see someone try this, but I do not think it will end well. Apple would find a way to squash the mark. They have sued many businesses that dared to use "Apple" in their clearly unrelated businesses, and I have no reason to believe that this case would be any different.

Practically speaking, trademarks cover whatever can be litigated successfully.

[mousetree]

See the disputes between Apple Corps (Beatles) and Apple: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

[fennecfoxy]

And of course the famous agreement from the Beatles of "okay fine, but you can only use the name if you don't get into music"

Cue Apple Music, lmao. It's a suit-and-tie'd cult, I swear.

[speg]

Perhaps, but there are indeed some existing that use Apple in their name:

https://www.applebank.com/

http://www.applecorps.com/

https://www.appleleisuregroup.com/

[internetter]

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/07/apfelkind-cafe... :)

[erk__]

Interesting that you used Apple as an example since they have fought with Apple Corp (Beatles owned company) over it for years https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer

[bioemerl]

Less "fought with" and more "apple corp continually sued apple for money every time apple tried to release a product associated to music."