> I'm not sure why this evokes such a strong reaction in me. I think it's because it's like a claim of "ownership".

That's because of the use of the word "branding", which is what cattle farmers do to their animals to indicate ownership. Had they used something more value-neutral like "initialed", our reactions wouldn't be nearly as strong.

(I'm not saying that "branding" is the wrong word to use, nor that "initialed" would have been better, just that the specific words we hear matter, even when their meaning is mostly the same)

I would not have retaliated in kind but most likely would have retaliated in court, and I would have pulled out all the stops to inflict maximum damage. So I'm sympathetic to your response but to react to the point where the damage you do is worse than the damage that was done to you - in spite of the breach of trust - is probably not the best course of action. Also, I've seen that movie.

I'm exaggerating, but I do think sometimes when a physical wrong is done to your person it requires a physical response.