I believe in the US trademark only applies to products that are actually being produced - basically the trademark is considered "abandoned" if the product isn't being made or the company goes out of business. Aside from the complicated issue of what got sold to whom and when, in the end this is a dispute about a name that's not actively being used by anyone so Apple should be able to use it. The whole thing just seems like a shakedown.
I'm not saying that no one should be vaccinated, but I am saying that maybe we shouldn't just assume that every little potential illness requires a vaccination before the age of six just because there is some evidence that suggest that individually vaccinations are a good idea, when no real study of the cumulative effects has been done.