> Could be that because the word in not that unique, companies can use it more freely? It's almost the opposite. For example, Apple is a very non-unique word,

> Could be that because the word in not that unique, companies can use it more freely? It's almost the opposite. For example, Apple is a very non-unique word, and I would not recommend naming a tech company that even if your name was Apple Apple (see Microsoft v. MikeRoweSoft). The trademark can give their brand exclusivity for that simple word in one type of product. The distillery wouldn't conflict, but Tererik may.