What you're missing is "branding" in general. Branding has almost transcended physical products. Apple Computers and Apple Corps were allowed to exist in the s

What you're missing is "branding" in general. Branding has almost transcended physical products. Apple Computers and Apple Corps were allowed to exist in the same markets because computers are not music. However, the now Apple Inc is more than computers. It's software, phones, tablets, chip manufacturing, streaming, etc. No, no one is going to confuse a dog toy with a bottle of Jack Daniel's. Just like no one would confuse a magnet, shirt, pin, or a plethora of merchandise with actual Jack Daniel's whiskey. But the Brown-Forman Corporation licenses the likeness of the label and bottle to make all of those items and more. The logotype, the shape of the bottle, the colors, all serve to remind people of the core product. They want to evoke a certain feeling associated with that brand. And if a product with their branding is made to a poor standard, if a chew toy is made with material harmful to dogs, there is a chance that people will assume that Brown-Forman is responsible. And they may want to actually make a Jack Daniel's themed chew toy. Or license their IP to someone to do it for them. So basically, since brands aren't really tied to a singular product any more, the entire idea of "separate domains" is rendered effectively moot at this point. Also, IP is the larger term. It encompasses trademark law, copyright, trade secrets, and others. Trademark is actually fairly strict, "fair use" doesn't apply, and parody is not a protection