>"common" is a stretch -- maybe it's common as a regional dialect. Some googling and brief dives into etymological references are suggesting to me that the ori

>"common" is a stretch -- maybe it's common as a regional dialect. Some googling and brief dives into etymological references are suggesting to me that the original usage is more common in Canada and the UK than the US. > Regardless, that's somewhat irrelevant: "moot" is far more commonly used to refer to Christopher Poole in the context of online discussions. (Even a quick glance at the search results of e.g. HN comments with the term "moot" confirms this.) Eh, I think you're overgeneralizing from your own perspective here (and searching HN to back yourself up is only magnifying, not mitigating, that effect). There's an awful lot of English-speaking internet out there beyond the bubble that wouldn't know 4chan from foursquare. > Whether or not "moot" should be a trademark is largely philosophical and not a debate I feel like putting any energy into. However, that moot can be a trademark even if it's a "common" word seems obvious at this point. I don't disagree. But note that it's Chris Poole's lawyer who's claiming that Moot can't be used as a trademark on the basis that Chris Poole and his screen name are so famous that they're entitled to Right of Publicity protection under New York law, which strikes me as stretching that law rather past its original intent (is Rand Corporation violating Paul Rand's Right of Publicity? Does Richard Gere have a case against Top Gear?).