This isn’t new. It’s generally applied to specific uses, and match in the dating world has legitimate brand recognition to be protected. I think the whole thing is BS, but it’s not a secret, and musmatch/YC should be no more surprised by it than someone starting a fast food joint called McChipotle.
Your analogy doesn't really carry over. If McDonalds or Chipotle were called "Food" then imo it would be a dick move to sue a smaller restaurant chain named GregFood. (As to whether they would prevail, I have no idea.)
We have been for a long time. Try opening a restaurant called "The Mouse" and you'll probably be fine. Try starting a TV channel with the same name, and I guarantee you'll be sued the same day it's announced.
I feel the distinction is that match is common term for the industry in which the trademark applies. Whereas Apple is not a common word in software except to mean that particular company.
I dont think I can call my company "Software" and then sue anyone that uses the word software in the software industry. I feel "match" is similar to trademark of the word Dating. I am sure a trademark attorney can enlighten us. I am guessing.
Obviously the trademark was granted in multiple jurisdictions for match so its not a problem apparently. I wonder what the rationale is.
In fact, it would be a lot like Microsoft deciding to sue Ingram Micro for having Micro in the name, and being in the IT business, despite that being a common term at the time of founding (microcomputers being what they're deriving from).
Or Microsoft suing NCSoft for being a software company.
Apple doesn't sell apples or any other kind of fruit. That's my guess as to why Apple is an acceptable trademark for phones, computers, music (per arrangement with Apple Records), etc, but Snapchat's Spectacles trademark was rejected. The term for this is "arbitrary mark".
note that apple did get sued by apple corps (the beatles music) when they began introducing music features to their computers with the IIgs and similar.
