Going too far

A writer is taken to court for using a word allegedly 'owned' by an organisation in a title. I can't help feeling that this amounts to censorship by private enterprise. "By declaring images, titles and now words to be ownable brands, these various organisations and individuals are contributing to an increased commodification and thus privatisation of materials previously agreed to be in the public domain. For scientists, this constrains the use of public and published knowledge, up to and including the human genome. For artists, it implies that the only thing you can do with subject matter is to sell it."
Of course trademarks have been around a good while, but usually some kind of acknowledgement has been sufficient, as far as I know. But read the comments for further info. There are some disturbing trends outlined in it all. However, the law may not be as asinine as sometimes made out. One of the commenters notes:

Trademarks (TM) ... are established by habitual use. The Olympic Authority needs to prove that a company is deliberately benefiting from their hard work - known as passing off. If the olympic rings are used, then this would be easy to establish. But because the Olympic tradition dates back so far, most users of the term can claim they are referring to the original games.

Guardian Unlimited | Comment is free | You can't use the O-word: