I would advocate a system similar to that used in trademark infringement cases. From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm http://cyber.

I would advocate a system similar to that used in trademark infringement cases. From http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/metaschool/fisher/domain/tm.htm If a party owns the rights to a particular trademark, that party can sue subsequent parties for trademark infringement. 15 U.S.C. §§ 1114, 1125. The standard is "likelihood of confusion." To be more specific, the use of a trademark in connection with the sale of a good constitutes infringement if it is likely to cause consumer confusion as to the source of those goods or as to the sponsorship or approval of such goods. In deciding whether consumers are likely to be confused, the courts will typically look to a number of factors, including: (1) the strength of the mark; (2) the proximity of the goods; (3) the similarity of the marks; (4) evidence of actual confusion; (5) the similarity of marketing channels used; (6) the degree of caution exercised by the typical purchaser; (7) the defendant's intent. I would say that in this case, the OP's argument fails in just about all of those factors listed above. The true trademark holder has exclusive rights to market their product as they see fit.