Since a term like "musicmatch" doesn't seem particularly generic or descriptive, then it would be likely they would claim rights in the term, even if the registration was for a stylized representation. However, there are two federal registrations which are not for stylized representations:
2426718 MUSICMATCH
2380285 MUSICMATCH
Where it says the "Mark Drawing Code" is a "Typed Drawing", they mean the letters themselves.
But with stylized marks in general, UDRP panels have had few difficulties finding "confusing similarity" in many but the most apparent examples of marks that would otherwise be generic or descriptive of the goods or services. In real trademark infringement situations, whether the infringer is using a confusingly similar mark would be a fact question left to a jury.
And that's probably a good jumping off point for why lawyers often seem so wishy-washy. There are two things that go on in parallel during a trial - resolving questions of law, and resolving questions of fact. A legal question is, "If you intentionally stab your ex-wife to death, is it first degree murder?" A fact question is, "Did O.J. Simpson engage in first degree murder?" Lawyers are pretty good at predicting the answers to the first category of question. But when you let a jury decide what are the facts of the situation, then anything can happen.
So, in determining whether, as a matter of fact, the underlying words are confusingly similar to a "design mark", then you are going to look at a bunch of things that contribute to the overall impression conveyed by the particular design mark in question. The extent to which the words are otherwise generic or descriptive is a good starting point. Then, you might want to look at whether there are any express disclaimers in the registration, the use of other similar marks by others in the relevant class of goods or services, etc.
Here's an example of a UDRP decision addressing this issue in the context of a respondent default:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1270.html
"Thus, although the complainant has rights in the stylized form of the trademark LOVELY GIRL in relation to womenââ¬â¢s apparel and womenââ¬â¢s care products, those rights cannot prevail over the use of the words "lovely girls" as an accurate description of lovely girls. Likewise the owner of the trademark APPLE in relation to computers cannot prevent use of the word "apple" in relation to apples."
