I see worlds like "Intel / Signal" "Swiss / Intel" "Audio / Oracle" "Fund / Oracle" being marketed on BrandBucket, yet Oracle and Intel both have international TM. So the TM classes, services and potential brand dillution mustn't be an issue when displaying TM words. This made me curious, and I decided to get "Oracle / Intel" and "Intel / Oracle" as they're attractive names for blockchain tech oracle functions. Anyway "Swiss / Intelt" currently on BrandBucket has two Trademark words "Swiss" and "Intel." which has me thinking "Oracle / Intel" cannot be discriminated against, just because each word is TM. So I guess the buyer of TM words is within their rights to own the business name and domain name, as long as they're not causing "brand dilution," consumer confusion between brands, or operating under the TM classes (e.g. 36 financial) services (e.g. 36, computerised financial services, provision of insurance advice etc) If it were legal for a company to hold universal rights to all services and produced gods branding etc, then citizen liberty to own by law said intellectual property would be excessively executed, and infringe on others right to a name. We have the Madrid Protocol and Intellectual Property Law for a reason; Fair entitlement to intellectual property and ensuring international integrity of intellectual property be protected. However, that protection will only exist where the law and protocol cover, it's not universal by default, hence branding/words/classes/services being fractions of a whole that is called Intellectual Property. If you have a different opinion I'd be happy to hear it. I'm just tired of people saying "it's TM, you can't have that." If their words have even a shred of credit, I'd be happy to hear it.