That's Hot: Stupidest Trademark Ever?

Has the US Patent and Trademark Organization completely lost their mind? They've allowed some awful trademarks and patents in the past but how in the world can they possibly allow a trademark on such a broad universal common phrase as granting Paris Hilton "That's Hot"?

What's even more amazing to me is that there are actually 5 or 6 other live trademarks in several other categories on "That's Hot." So this isn't a one time slip but a pattern of stupidity.

Granted, I'm not a lawyer, let along not a trademark or patent lawyer, but I also can't see how in 2005 an Australian company files for a trademark for "That's Hot" for "WINE, SPARKLING WINE, WINE BASED BEVERAGES, DISTILLED SPIRITS, LIQUEURS" and in 2007, Paris is allowed to file for "That's Hot" for "Alcoholic beverages, namely, wine, champagne and prosecco." It doesn't appear that hers is to the "published for opposition" stage yet but why bother, this looks like an obvious conflict. And how does her Trademark in either that category or the same "That's Hot" in "MEN'S AND WOMEN'S CLOTHING, NAMELY, SHIRTS, SHORTS, JEANS, JACKETS, SKIRTS, SLACKS, BLOUSES, DRESSES, VESTS, COATS, SWEATERS, SCARVES, SWIMSUITS, UNDERWEAR, UNDERPANTS, SLIPS, CAMISOLES, BRAS, NIGHTGOWNS, ROBES, SOCKS, HOSIERY; INFANTS' AND CHILDREN'S CLOTHING, NAMELY T-SHIRTS, SWEATERS, LONG SLEEVED SHIRTS, SHORTS, PANTS, JUMPERS, JUMPSUITS, OVERALLS, ONE-PIECE PLAYSUITS, PAJAMAS, SOCKS, DRESSES, SKIRTS; MEN'S, WOMEN'S, CHILDREN'S AND INFANT'S FOOTWEAR AND HEADWEAR; BELTS" possibly prevent Hallmark from using it in a greeting card?

I'm glad for Hallmark's apparent attempt to defend this use as protected parody, but I'm offended by the stupidity of the trademark in the first place. Man, like I am so like never like watching "Simple Life" like ever again. And just like consider like National Lampoon Pledge This like totally off my wish list.