Have deleted my original comment which was wrong in every particular (I thought trading name was Waterstones not Waterstone's).
In this case the possessive apostrophe belongs to the bookshop (or corporate entity), not the books, so Waterstone's books can't be right. Neither Waterstones' books nor Waterstones books can be right because both modify the punctuation of the trading name (by omitting the possessive apostrophe). Waterstone's' books is wrong because it suggests more than one "Waterstone's" entity, which isn't the case.
I suppose it must be Waterstone's's books, which preserves the trading name and appends the correct singular apostrophe, but it just looks wrong.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2005-07-27 09:38 pm (UTC)In this case the possessive apostrophe belongs to the bookshop (or corporate entity), not the books, so Waterstone's books can't be right. Neither Waterstones' books nor Waterstones books can be right because both modify the punctuation of the trading name (by omitting the possessive apostrophe). Waterstone's' books is wrong because it suggests more than one "Waterstone's" entity, which isn't the case.
I suppose it must be Waterstone's's books, which preserves the trading name and appends the correct singular apostrophe, but it just looks wrong.