Note that this isn't for github's copilot, but rather for running your own LLM engine locally. It's going to quickly get confused with the unofficial copilot-for-emacs plugin pretty quickly: https://github.com/zerolfx/copilot.el
Given the lack of namespacing in Elisp (or, rather, the informal namespacing conventions by which these two packages collide) it's unfortunate that this package chose the same name.
You have time to react to serious issues, including after accidentally deleting the first few emails. Trademarks are different from patents. Pre-grant and/or post-grant opposition for a single generic word is a relatively easy way to kill it.
'copilot' https://uspto.report/Search/copilot `269 Results`
In related note, Microsoft once tried so hard to trademark "Bookself" (type code GS0091) https://uspto.report/TM/74567299 `Dead/Cancelled`
https://trademarks.justia.com/981/61/microsoft-98161972.html
In trademark law that’s not going to hold up unless combined with other terms - ie GitHub copilot (trademark), copilot (not trademark)
Even combining generics is probably only valid for a trademark under certain circumstances. For instance, “flight copilot” is likely generic because it’s existed for years across products. However, “sandwich copilot” is likely not generic because no one has asserted it yet and thus you can potentially trademark protect it.
Ultimately, the question is simple “does this product confuse customers, such that they believe it’s made by another organization? AND does it intentionally do so, for monetary gain?” If you can’t say yes to both and prove both, you’re probably fine.
I say all of this as the founder of https://ipcopilot.ai and have spoken with attorneys extensively AND our product is directly assisting IP attorneys. That said, I’m not an attorney, and this isn’t advice :)