The silliness surely is not the granting of a trademark to Iceland, for a shop selling frozen foods, it is this crazy notion that a trademark for one thing should be a bar on the use of any vaguely similar terms for anything at all.
The rule should be:
A word that does not exist (eg Kodak) can be a generic trademark
A name can't stop anyone who has that name using their name, but combined with other features, fine (eg George Harrod should be able to open a shop called Harrod's but not to copy the font and make everything green and gold)
A common word you better have a bloody good case and apply it extremely narrowly.
If the courts had applied this sort of common sense then no case Iceland brought against any Icelandic company would have succeeded, merely against anyone setting up a Supermarket and labelling everything in red on a white background.
None of the three consenting adults has ever publicly said anything about such things being wrong.
None of the three adults makes their money out of being upright boring moral guardians.
So WHY the F*** should anyone care who they are?
Personally I wouldn't care either way if someone said such things about me, but I do believe everyone is entitled to a degree of privacy and these three seem to want that. Good luck to them. Move on and deal with something genuinely interesting. Courts not being American isn't a bad thing, the English courts haven't tried to impose the injuction in any other jurisdiction, they have weighed English law and acted on it. That's what they are for!
Personally I'm all in favour of free speech, BUT, it isn't always that simple. I haven't read the judgement in detail (my German's not that good) but have seen a few summaries. What the court appears to have said is that makind fun of Erdogan being an egomaniac suppressor of criticism and the free press, but it isn't OK to make totally unsubstantiated allegations of extreme sexual deviancy. This is not a judgement I would make but I can see it as not totally unreasonable. As Americans you idolise free speech. That is your right but many others around the World think of Americans as totally weird and stupidly childish for parts of your law and constitution. The glory of this World is that we are all different and there is no right answer, merely millions of differently wrong ones.
Why doesn't GCHQ start? How about they provide a special secure way for the House of Commons committee to access all of their systems and inspect everything they have done. All without any need to contact GCHQ at all, just, say, a signature from a Police Chief Inspector or above. Clearly from his reasoning he will be 100% in favour of this plan and as soon as his staff have designed the 100% secure way for us to check on them we will be happy to suggest others us it too ...
He didn't say all Christians were racist, he said there are millions of people who claim to be Christian but then display characteristics incompatible with that belief. He didn't say there are no Christians who get it right, just that many who get it wrong.
I have a simple solution. If you want copyright protection you should be REQUIRED to provide access to the material to legitimate purchasers in perpetuity. At the point you wish to cease to do so you must make the source code available and it becomes fully legal to use that source code to allow other legitimate purchasers to access their purchases. The same should be true of all software, keep it available and properly patched or hand the job on to others who will. That has been the rule for all other purchases since time immemorial.
The DOJ know that Apple cannot comply with the order, what is needed is for the few judges who actually understand to start acting properly and when the DOJ ask for an impossibility to call them out, require the presence in court of the official who asked for the data, and have him repeat the request on oath. Then jail him for contempt and ask for his arrest for perjury.
After a few senior official are shuffling round the exercise yard for a while maybe they will start to act their age.
What is a trademark? I had always thought a trademark was a distinctive mark or name used to identify a product or service. To be distinctive it had to be more than purely descriptive. In the case the alleged mark appears to have strayed into the area of a mere description, in this one particular case. It would be very difficult to see how his eatery could ever run a lumberjack contest without some degree of similarity existing to the Florida based company's shows. BUT THAT IS THEIR FAULT! They chose to put together the stereotypical name for a lumberjack with lumberjack shows. Was it foreseeable that there were places using Paul Bunyon in their name? Of course it was, was it foreseeable that such places could want to run lumberjack shows? Of course it was clearly an idiot at the PTO didn't bother to think. If there were any logic in the world the case would be slung out in the first 3 minutes, so I predict it will drag on for years!