[Armorer-at-Law]

It really doesn't set any new precedent in trademark law, although it may be useful to support and explain arguments that other military-designated names are not protectable as trademarks.

The whole "functionality as a defense to trade dress protection" issue, that was decided (in Bushmaster's favor) by the district court and not appealed to the First Circuit, is one that is evolving currently and has a circuit-by-circuit split in precedent.