Re: Dodgy copyright ground! (Err - no?)
Well, I up-voted the original on principle - but I can't help wondering whether I was actually right to do so. On what sound legal grounds would the Beeb actually claim exclusive use of the name?
Copyright? No. In the UK at least, copyright does not cover names. (see, e.g., http://www.copyrightservice.co.uk/copyright/p18_copyright_names)
Trademarks? Possible, but probably not. Whilst the Beeb has registered TARDIS as a trademark, trademarks are usually granted for a particular industry sector. "Polo", for example is a trademark in the UK for both a type of mint and a mark of car. Or there's the well-known clash of naming over "Apple", involving the global IT brand and the Beatles' record publisher, of course (resolved by Apple Computers agreeing not to publish records, and Apple Records agreeing not to produce computers).
There's UK laws on "passing off", of course. The BBC is still protected in its use of TARDIS by those. But it would take a severe stretch of the imagination to suggest that a data routing strategy/algorithm might be likely to infringe.
None of the above would in principle stop the Beeb taking someone to court, of course - and that someone might well then give way rather than risk their own assets on the lottery of a court case. It wouldn't alter the legal position one iota - but, sadly, asymmetry at law often produces "unfair" results..
(IANAL, so the above may easily be flawed - but I've worked with them, and copyright, patents and so forth have been relevant to my job at times.)