How you can conclude there is zero leverage when there is no legal precedent in this space is fascinating to me.

It's like when the domain name wars began.  There was no legal precedent as it was an emerging technology, but it sure ended up being created.

What I'd like to know is: how are the holders of a decentralized asset NOT the owners and in control who simply choose to allow the dev to do as they please as long as the community determine they're doing what is in the interest of the asset?  If the majority owners of a decentralized asset don't want their decentralized asset's trademark sold, can it be sold?  As far as I know, there is no legal precedent to answer this question.  Yet.

Ethically, not purchasing Dashcoin was a terrible decision.  What Darkcoin has done may very well be perfectly ok from a legal standpoint.  However, as there is zero legal precedent for decentralized assets, what I'm saying is the deep-pocketed company Darkcoin is picking a fight with may choose not to walk away from their trademark registration without a serious fight.  And that serious fight may result in legal precedent being set.  I'd be dumb not to buy a boatload of the very cheap underlying asset the fight is over just in case the legal precedent would be in my favor.