But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image. So, should a brand get to control in perpetuity whatever they cho

But there are tons of good reasons to ensure people can't profit off an active brand's image. So, should a brand get to control in perpetuity whatever they choose to associate with themselves? Should we extend trademark protections to whatever a brand wants to self-identify with, even if it falls outside the traditional scope of a mark? Basically, I'm getting to the question: should it be the brand's responsibility to choose a protectable mark, or should it be on society to accept a loss to the scope of public domain whenever a brand has a lack of foresight? (and/or arrogance they could keep getting laws written for themselves?)