I remember the Good Old Days™ where cable throttled you (or simply did not build in enough bandwidth on the local loop and oversold their capacity) for using you internet because apparently everyone and their grandmother was torrenting 24x7 and the piracy angle was just a bit of frosting on the cake.
More so, plenty will insist that things are true, whether or not they really believe them - assuming they ever look at themselves or anything else deeply enough for questioning instead of belief. If it suits their beliefs or their agenda, it's "true".
Or we could start really challenging what is enforceable in TOS/EULAs in court. They are non-negotiable "contracts", and particularly in cases when there is no other option, people are going to use the product or service because they need to do so.
What is there to show when the dispute is over the word "virgin"? If you're interested, it looks like a square and some olive leaves, but is entirely irrelevant. http://vassevirgin.com.au/
There isn't a lot of information regarding the specifics of the dispute, so there is not much to provide or on which to comment.
Vasse Virgin has denied it has any plans to go into the airline, or, space travel business.
"We have lodged the application in 2 service classes that Virgin are saying is their core business," said Mr Scherini.
"It was meant to cover tours throughout the olive grove and workshops that we have in our factory where 7 people at a time learn to make skin care products."
He said Vasse Virgin offered to drop this in its initial negotiations "along with not using specific colours, putting our logo on racing cars or airplanes etc."
Virgin said talks are continuing between the two parties "to resolve these issues".
Vasse Virgin said it is now putting together a submission to IP Australia that is due on 10th June 2015.
Or another source:
"Vasse Virgin agreed to a number of demands, apart from one that we felt may have the capacity to cause serious damage to our business in the future," she said.
Mrs Scherini said Vasse Virgin later received a letter from the company "stating that unless we agreed to their demands, they saw no point in participating".
Meanwhile, the specifics are again pretty irrelevant. There would never be any confusion. Regardless of the use case. Even if there were a Vasse Virgin Records, you'd have to be beyond a moron in a hurry to be confused. Virgin is simply being ridiculous.
It only implies something is not there if you begin with the definition that "property" refers only to tangible, rivalrous things.
Since that didn't happen, I think you need to critique, if possible, what was said.
The granted monopoly right is not tangible, but it is the only part, correctly observed in the article, that is rivalrous. One owns a monopoly (theoretically time-limited) on their expression of some idea. The fact that the courts and bureaucracies let people get away with extremely vague expressions, or sue over vague similarities and obvious and cultural ideas does not make such ideas property themselves.
Of course, many like that idea. But it's funny how the (poor) metaphor of their monopoly lapsing as some sort of theft or government redistribution of thoughts never seems to be a major argument for extension as do things like "moral rights" or e.g., changing things just enough to refile for a copyright or patent that locks out very different expressions or implementations that provide a similar function.