Also IANAL but these demands make even less sense due to trademarks being categorised in classes, that you own Douche® registered in rubber products doesn't mean someone else can't have Douche® furnitures, and both have a reasonable and compatible claim to the name (for instance there are at least 5 different companies or organisations called "Apple" with presence in the US).
Furthermore, the USPTO allows multiple trademarks with the same name in the same class, because trademarks must be distinctive and unless the name is completely made up and demonstrably novel (e.g. Blu-Ray, Kodak) it's not distinctive and does not inherently constitute a trademark (though generic trademarks can acquire distinctiveness through use e.g. "apple" would probably be considered distinctive).
> for instance there are at least 5 different companies or organisations called "Apple" with presence in the US
An interesting trivia is that Apple Computer got in trouble with Apple, the record label, when they introduced the Apple IIgs, because it had a musical instrument synthesiser chip built in.
But the further detail on that is the reason for this is that Apple Records and Apple Computer had previously signed a settlement agreement where Apple Records promised not to get into the computer business and Apple Computer promised not to get into the music business.
Furthermore, the USPTO allows multiple trademarks with the same name in the same class, because trademarks must be distinctive and unless the name is completely made up and demonstrably novel (e.g. Blu-Ray, Kodak) it's not distinctive and does not inherently constitute a trademark (though generic trademarks can acquire distinctiveness through use e.g. "apple" would probably be considered distinctive).