Then why is it so profitable for mark holders to sue everyone so broadly when there is no benefit to consumers?
No one thought Tony the Tiger lived in Exxon gasoline, and yet the lawsuit exists.
No one thought Tony the Tiger lived in Exxon gasoline, and yet the lawsuit exists.
There’s always some lawyer who will claim that a law applies even if it it found that doesn’t. In fact, this is entirely normal. Legal cases have two sides and only one will be found right.
The motivations of the lawyers in your examples are entirely different than the motivations of the lawmakers who wrote trademark law, and the judiciary that enforces it.
Let’s be clear: nobody created trademark law for the purpose of a cereal company getting rich off suing petroleum companies. In fact, those who established trademark law purposefully limited trademarks to a particular good or service exactly to prevent that.