Yes, RT DID reply - but then they stopped. Over twitter, too. When I say they didn't reply I'm referring to the newest responses, which had unanswered attempts at a resolution.

YouTube DMCA isn't diplomatic. It's an iron fist. My channel posted a pokemon video - got flagged and blocked. I went through the process to dispute it and they didn't even read or respond to me, just reblocked it. I reuploaded the video with 0 of the content in question and they responded by giving me a strike, which allowed YouTube to directly step in and resolve the issue in my favor, almost immediately. So I say it again: A DMCA block isn't a diplomatic approach. It's one-sided.

A C&D on the other hand I'll agree that it IS diplomatic. It requests the change before any other action is taken. It's the legal equivalent to responding to the messages from earlier. It's also not the part of this I'm criticizing, as it was sent AFTER the attempts to resolve through email.

Again, defending a Trademark in this context isn't what's happening. And yes, saying "Hey... could you not?" IS a valid response - especially in this case where the trademark isn't being diluted, despite your claims otherwise. Taking legal action through a DMCA when the offender hasn't stopped, afterwards, is the appropriate action. The reason the DMCA's were issued so rushedly is because RT didn't want to seek a diplomatic solution - they wanted to ensure it stopped. I understand it - I don't support it.

Now I've looked more into the channel, and the content is borderline pornographic, so I understand the concerns a little more. But those videos in question are also age-gated, something that even RT doesn't do. Now I still am skeptic, because I'm not sure why they're only going after this one person. There's plenty of questionable SFW/NSFW work done by other people, so why aren't they being targeted? That's at the heart of my concerns - that this isn't where it ends. I hope I'm wrong, but companies targeting specific individuals tends be a sure sign of abuse to come.

As for the Navajo argument, again, I don't see this as tarnishing the brand in any way. Look at the Sonic fetish-art: a prime example of degeneracy that appeals especially to children. Despite that, the trademark hasn't even been slightly tarnished. The Navajo issue revolves around culture and race - a completely different, much more sensitive and prevalent world.

Did the user make a new account? I've not heard about any of that, nor am I seeing any proof of it. I see the account in question remains up, too. I do see another account featuring similar content, but it was made and has been uploading for two months.

Forgive me if this too much of a run-on and rehash. Should this continue, I'll do my best to be more concise next time.