What Canonical considers an infringement is still pretty relevant. Civil law is mainly a tool for resolving disagreements between parties, not a system of abstr

What Canonical considers an infringement is still pretty relevant. Civil law is mainly a tool for resolving disagreements between parties, not a system of abstractly judging the conformance of every action to the (very large) body of law. Therefore the first important step is to be able to understand the viewpoints of each party, which would tell you if there is even a disagreement to begin with. Lawsuits are a last resort for when parties are unable to reach an understanding on their own. Canonical doesn't have the final word on things, but they do have a word on things: they can clarify their own position. If what they claim as trademarks goes beyond what trademark law allows, then it's true that they would be unable to enforce that in court, so it's ultimately not their call. But they could simplify the situation and reduce the risk to all parties of needing to resolve disagreements in court by explicitly stating their position on acceptable uses of their trademark, i.e. what they would not consider to be a violation of their protected interest. This would give downstream users at least a better understanding of Canonical's interpretation, which is key to avoiding expensive lawsuits: if you're using Canonical's trademarks only in ways that Canonical itself considers proper, then there's no disagreement that needs to be resolved in court.