Give an AI-slop response and pretend it's informative or helpful for the discussion. And now you're arguing about what it told you! But you have no idea what of it is real, let alone accurate. The whole thing is facially wrong. Why would they be arguing its like the coca cola or nike marks? It's not. It's a mark made from a now-expired copyrightable work. That's not true of the nike or coca cola marks. I guess you didn't realize that? That's my point.

>That would have to be argued in court

And? People make specious arguments in court all the time.

>The rulings on a trademark case would simply be based on the intent or likelihood to mislead people into believing there's an endorsement or association there.

Yeah. There's a huge disclaimer that says this it is not endorsed by Disney.