> I think this is hugely misunderstood, though. You have to defend your trademark, but it's still within your rights to grant someone permission to use it.

I think it's a case of where a lot of people don't have experience with trademark licensing.

Back in the 90s I worked for a small company that was in various "partner" programs with hardware and software companies (Microsoft, Intel, Citrix, etc). Each "partnership" agreement came with trademark licensing documentation and very, very specific usage requirements for using the trademarked name, logos, etc. With at least one of the companies we had to get ad copy approved for compliance with our license.

And those kinds of licenses support your case where you have to defend your trademark. “See, your honor, how we diligently negotiated licensing terms with other parties, who compensated us for it? This is an active trademark used in business.”

The single biggest thing is that you have to stop people from using it without permission. If that means you stop them by granting that permission, then so be it.