Yeah but I think that's only a factor in the consideration. I doubt it cancels out identical and very distinct names.

Perhaps a trademark lawyer can weigh in. My understanding is that a trademark is strictly limited to the areas (both in terms of geography and vertical) claimed in the application. This is why Apple didn't have to do battle with the Beatles until they got into the music business.

Yeah because "apple" is a common term that people might reasonably expect two businesses to use. The point of trademark law is to prevent consumer confusion.

I am not a trademark lawyer and I haven't even looked this up but if Apple made a "The Beatles Laptop" then I would hope that defence doesn't apply.

> This is why Apple didn't have to do battle with the Beatles until they got into the music business.

That went back to the Apple IIɢꜱ. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sosumi

The more interesting Apple trademark case was "iPhone", which was in active use by Cisco for their VoIP desk phones.

The main thing is if a consumer would be confused. I don't think consumers would be confused about an ancient Intel processor and a brand new smartwarch.