The only reason to fight for a trademark is if you are at the risk of "genericization", like happened to Kleenex or Xerox. If someone else is using your trademark to refer to something that is a substitute for your product (i.e. using Kleenex to refer to another brand of tissue paper), that's where you need to step up.
However, that's an exception. In general, you just have to actively use your trademark in relation to your product to keep it, and you are not required to fight other companies who make similar trademarks but do not risk genericazation.
This case is very clearly a case where the term is being used in a totally different non-confusing way, which means it's both not a trademark violation, and also that there's no risk of genericization occurring.
The two things in question are so different it would be like suggesting that Apple has to sue my local coffee shop to retain its "Cocoa" trademark (the software UX toolkit) since my local coffee shop sells cocoa.
Yikes! This kind of thing will get you banned on HN. I'm not going to ban you right now because I didn't see other examples of it when I skimmed through your history just now, and I did see other comments that were good HN posts. But please don't do it again, regardless of how wrong or bad some other comment is or you feel it is.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://qqrl.tk/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
https://www.trane.com/index.html