The best quote from the document is the following:

Although Lindows.com certainly made a conscious decision to play with fire by choosing a product and a company name that differs by only one letter from the world's leading computer software program, one could just as easily conclude that in 1983 Microsoft made an equally risky decision to name its product after a term commonly used in the trade...

MS did the same thing with "DOS." I do believe that they should be allowed to hold the trademark, but that its protection is (or should be) limited. Preventing someone else from using the name "Windows" for a different operating system would fall under this protection. Preventing someone from using any MS "Windows" or recognisable logo (or variant) should also fall into this.

I'm glad to see "Lindows" holding its own. I think it's a lame name and a dishonest marketing effort, but I'm glad to see this decision and hope it will cause a few other large companies to tread lightly with generic marks. I thought this was going to be about a domain-ony dispute when I first jumped into the thread. In domain cases I would normally side in favour of the registrant provided it wasn't a case of cyber-squatting (ie. blackmail, reselling, etc..) or using the registered name for competition or defamation. A much bigger bad-guy for trademark disputes is Apple. They've unfairly gone after many people who didn't know they'd be able to successfully defend their cases (of course having the money to do so can be a problem). Especially since Apple doesn't have many marks of its own that weren't previously registered by other parties. (Needless to say, a mark must include a design anyway, you can't register a trademark for a simple "word")

Bruno