> In the U.S., that's close enough to constitute a case.
not invariably for computer software (excluding evident intent to mislead for
instance wrt origin),
since it's one of the classes considered to allow many non-interfering
subclasses.
someone would have to decide whether that's true in this case
(and of course there are many other rules considered).
if Lucent had registered it as a general software product brand name
and used it as such, it would be different, but `Plan 9' was restricted at
registration.
for similar reasons, there is more than one `Inferno' in software.
the US PTO demanded quite a bit of evidence of real use for Inferno,
and expected a reasonably refined goods & services, before registration.
i don't think they went as far as actually installing it.
