I wouldn't say Pink.com is a mock website. It's a mainly hands off revenue generator. They likely get a lot of traffic, so it was definitely worth minimal investment in a few articles, but after initial set-up, from what I understand, there's software you can use to scrape content and a lot of the "lists" are just ads.
While the effort to maintain a bit of unique content is minimal, it looks like it might just be enough to keep Google happy .. or at least not angry .. lol
Does Victoria Secret have a line called "Pink"? Seems like that would be a really hard word to actually trademark alone as a single word for clothing. Just because they use it does not mean it's a trademark or that it's trademarkable. You generally can't trademark a term already in heavy use within an industry. Not sure if "Pink" alone would fall in that category within clothing/lingerie?
(@jberryhill ?)
I'm pretty sure it's much like Geos. You can't really enforce some geo trademarks within that specific Geo if the combined term makes a generic/common-use local reference like say "Montreal Towing". You could certainly have a trademark for "Montreal Towing" anywhere else except Montreal .. like a "Montreal Towing" in New York for example. Or a "New York Towing" in Montreal. But you likely won't get away with being able to trademark "Montreal Towing" in Montreal, nor "New York Towing" in New York.
It's not so much about the "Geo", but since trademarks can often be Geo specific and often are specific to certain territories, the names of those regions can combine to make a term that is too generic/common-use at a regional level to be trademarked. Similarly, whether Pink+Lingerie or even Pink+Clothing, or effectively Pink on it's own within the TM class(es) that apply to clothing, would be considered allowable as a TM or not one of those fun "shades of grey" cases where a decision could go either way depending on how the judge or UDRP panellist views the specific term and/or TM class.
Similarly again .. generic / common usage is why if you were selling fruit, you could never trademark "Red Apple" or "Green Apple", because they are common properties and terms within the industry .. but you most certainly could trademark "Blue Apple" because the word "Blue" isn't commonly associated with Apples, and as such "Blue Apple" is not a generic industry term.
I'm very curious to see how right/wrong I am in my above assumptions .. lol .. we are so lucky to have someone like
@jberryhill around to tell us when we're wrong! lol