While I 100% agree in principle, Mr Michaels case seemed obvious that he purely intended to profit off the confusion of the existing well known brand with identical products. I saw that as someone purposely pushing the limits of CDRP and trademark law just to see how much he could get away with. I haven't read that case in a long time, but that was the takeaway that has stuck in my memory. I know he's here and has great contributions from time to time. Now that many years of water are under the bridge, I wonder what he'd have to say about it? It would be interesting to know but I also would understand if he didn't want to discuss it.
@richard.schreier was thinking along the same lines as I, where you've gotta hope the system gets it right in the end, which they usually do. But you're right, there is never any guarantee that you won't get harassed in the process. But that is the system we live in... its definitely not perfect.
