> Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors. Exce

> Also, the great side effect is you don't have all the ludicrous results of trademark law, like ownership of letters, words, phrases, shapes, and colors. Except if you don't have that, or its equivalent, the system can't work. Whether the mechanism is based on contracts or ownership, the end result is that the only kind of soda which can have that bottle shape and that kind of logo design is the one made by this specific company. Otherwise, it's too confusing, and fraudulent misrepresentation is too easy. Specific colors, words, shapes, and patterns are how human brains distinguish things. They have to be distinct and recognizable for people to differentiate between different kinds of product, especially when they're different varieties of the same basic thing. It seems you're getting hung up on specific terms, such as 'own'. That's not how the law works: Broad concepts are whittled down into specific terms of art in each individual branch of the law, which is what has happened to the concept of 'ownership' when applied to trademarks. It's a very different thing from owning a car, but there are certain vague similarities that justify the re-use of the concept.