Eventually it might not be a concern, when Steemit Inc has distributed its power as such.

However, it may still be. Your interpretation that the clause would not prevent hard forks opposed by Steemit Inc may not be how the courts or the future owners of Steemit see it. And there could still be some significant time between now and then. It only took 5 years for the Bitcoin community to completely turn on its head, for example, with various parties vying for power (some indeed threatening legal force). I am concerned about these scenarios because I have seen them happen before.

I can see your described scenario as a harmful one, but I'm not sure that legal avenues are the best defense. A contentious minority fork of Bitcoin could similarly be called 'Bitcoin' by various parties, leading to confusion. Yet I would still prefer that the market and not legal force ultimately determines what is fair to call "Bitcoin" and "Steem".

@sneak