We see the second half. Your sentence reduces to:

> Trademark violations require intent to mislead, or they do not require intent to mislead.

You are trying to assert that this makes sense and that the second half makes the first half correct. Neither is true.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to achieve by leaving multiple successive comments threads about the same topic. I will reply to this message and will withdraw after this.

——

The sentence reduces to “trademark violations are considered to have taken place regardless of when there is either an intention to mislead or if a customer was unintentionally misled.”

If the grammar was poop and you can’t make a good faith reading of it (to go so far as to follow me around on this post) then by all means feel free to comment away but I won’t be responding to it.

Another expression of your stereotype: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23360585

We don't need you to respond. You have made it clear that there is nothing anyone can ever say or do to convince you that you are wrong.