[s1artibartfast]

It is still relevant. The fact that it is preexisting is obvious evidence that it shouldn't have been granted or was immediately overturned on challenge.

The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow

[thaumasiotes]

> The trademark office would not give me a trademark for "computers", "the internet", or "AI" if I walked in tomorrow

Again, so what? Would they give you a trademark on "The Bawdy House" for your chain of brothels? The problem with "computers", "internet", and "AI" is current usage, not former usage.

[s1artibartfast]

I don't understand what distinction you're trying to make between current and former.

Pre-existing and continuous usage is strong evidence that the current usage is not exclusive to your product.