I am kind of on the fence on the whole thing....
I don't see the argument for Bells in this case....HOWEVER!
The way trademark laws are written, there really is no "protection". No one is independantly or proactively studying each trademark or potential trademark. No entity is going to protect your brand for you. So it is up to each company/person to defend its own trademark and brands.
The way the laws are written, if you fail to defend a "potential" infringment as soon as you are aware... you are essentially letting your trade mark lapse and all future arguments that someone is "stealing" your tradmark become null and void because you did not defend it previously...So allowing the precidence of someone to use it without your express permission, opens everything in the future up.
All in all the preset system was created by lawyers and big business to benefit lawyers and those with deep enough pockets to have them... Creating a competitive edge for bigger companies by creating a need for lawyers to argue this nonsense, when most people could create an agreement over a beer and a hand shake.
I think it is a crappy move on Bell's part when looking at this singular item...but because of the whole big litigation world surrounding trademarks... I think it is something they may need to do when you look at the big picture. (Part of the @$#% part of the business)
What really needs to happen is a better set of laws surrounding trade marks, and a change to the system that enforces it. The present system was created by big companies (mostly outside of the beer business) so to have the laws work, you have to use them like big business.