Right, but this is what I'm doing a poor job of trying to get you to explain to me - in the fictional case of Elon putting Patagonia branding on a Cyber Truck to try and win back granola EV buyers, that would be clearly deceptive to the consumers. You keep saying that people wouldn't be confused and think that Patagonia is now making cars - of course not. But they would still be confused about the involvement of Patagonia and all that that means to them, and may make a choice to buy the product that they wouldn't have made without the deceptive use of the trademark. It's maybe a bit harder imagine that someone might do that with a $100k purchase but it would be easy with some normal consumable - to customers, Patagonia means ethically source and eco-friendly and durably made and perhaps some kind of guarantee and even that the profits go to some environmental organization. If someone puts that Patagonia logo on some non-outdoor clothing related consumable and I quickly choose to buy the one from the company that makes durable eco-conscious products with a lifetime guarantee and profits that benefit fighting global warming but it turns out that this is a bottom of the barrel cheap piece of shit drop-shipped from the coal burning plastics factory in Shenzhen, have I not been deceived into purchasing the wrong product? What I don't understand from your point is the limits of what a trademark should protect - it should only be used to prevent confusion over who manufactured a physical product in the core business of the entity holding the trademark?