Originally Posted by carlton

draggar - I believe many people, perhaps even a majority, would spell it "chilli". I'd like to add that this particular case seems like a monumental stretch on the part of the plaintiff. Probably falls a bit short of reverse domain name hijacking, but to prove bad faith on Schilling's part or an intent to exploit their brand is going to be an extemely high hurdle I don't think the plaintiff can make (in U.S. court of law).

Protecting one's brand we can all appreciate, but that's why there are rather substantial trademark limitations when adopting a highly generic term for your company name. There is perhaps more gravity and significance in this case to define the boundaries (limits) of trademark protection than to kneejerk an artificial win for an obscure company whose "brand identity" is almost zero when compared to the public's familiarity with the food, chilli (chili) beans. The stupid company should have considered a more fanciful mark.