If we wish to prevent this happening repeatedly and the word losing any actual meaning, it’s about the only option - but it may not be an option we can take. I think it is reasonable to find out if the horse has actually bolted or if we’re being defeatist about it.
Given the amount of protest we’ve had in the past when any brand has attempted to use “hackspace” it’s pretty obvious that we all care about this - in the past we’ve had success convincing people to change track, but it was never going to work forever if we don’t have a legal basis. And now it hasn’t worked and people are distressed.
I’m unclear why it would be a slap in the face of Reading Hackspace, no current space would ever be prevented from using the name, including Reading.
I’m just going to re-state this: The point of the incoming HSF structure is so that the organisation is owned and run by as many spaces in the UK as we can feasibly get to agree on joining - again please stop assuming that Reading can’t join exactly as it is, that is at the discretion of the directors (who will be elected from all the participating spaces). We’re likely never going to get everyone to agree, but we have to accept that and aim for the largest coverage we can.
The trademark would then be joint-owned by all the spaces who join the HSF, with all other spaces who opt not to join (or really don’t fit the bill) still being allowed to use it anyway. The only time this would actually matter is in cases like this where a for-profit entity attempts to use the name for something that all the spaces agree isn’t reasonable - it would then be put to the spaces to make this call. Given the huge number of spaces in the UK and the amount we’re going to end up with as members, the chances of the trademark being misused is extremely unlikely.
Again: All I’m proposing is that we figure out if it even can be trademarked now and then we can actually have a reasoned debate rather than posting reckons.