Nonetheless when you say:

“consumer confusion” test of trademark infringement but reach well beyond that rationale to protect brands from other commercial uses

you seem to go away from colloquial, non-commercial uses such as the Kool-Aid, Craigslist, and Tylenol example (by Tylenol could be an example of positive image control given the move to pull all the bottles and develop seals for them too).

I think that there is a difference between offering control over non-commercial expressive uses and the sort of reputation, commercial harm that seems to be objectionable to you. My article with Sandra Rierson, Confronting the Genericism Conundrum, goes through that distinction and the problems with allowing mark holders to make over broad claims about harm to the mark.