Trademark law is what allows me as a consumer to buy a Coke and know I’ll get a Coke.

I find that convenient, despite owning no trademarks.

The benefits are so easily taken for granted as just being normal parts of life.

Just like how we take for granted that you can count on your food label not lying to you and your food not having dangerous ingredients, with proper inspections and such.

That's an ironic example, because I've been to several areas where Coke is the generic term and people would be confused if you said soda or soft drink or whatever. I have literally asked for a Coke and been asked "what kind?", with a gesture to a menu listing Sprite etc. (They were not asking about Diet Coca Cola.)

But it stops you from getting an equivalent coke from any other vendor, even if you might want to (because it might be cheaper). You're assuming that everyone finds it as important as you do that your “Coke” comes from a specific manufacturer regardless of what the product actually is or contains.

For Coke you might be right about most people (though not me) but there are plenty of products where brand loyalty isn't a thing. People just want some decent hand tissues around, nobody cares if it's made by actual Kleenex.

If I want to, I can readily buy a cola from several other companies today, with trademark law as-is. I can get a Coke from only one.

Are you arguing that I’d be somehow better off if any company could sell me an “equivalent” Coke, Toyota Camry, or iPhone?