They misconstrue what de minimis is in the context of – the case they cite is about Congress being able to regulate illegal sales of marijuana NOT trademarks.

Weinberg 17 – Peter Weinberg, 7-1-2017, "Use in commerce for federal trademark registration: the Federal Circuit slowly moves towards the Supreme Court", No Publication, https://casetext.com/analysis/use-in-commerce-for-federal-trademark-registration-the-federal-circuit-slowly-moves-towards-the-supreme-court?sort=relevance&resultsNav=false&q= /$antiP/

In Gonzales v. Raich, the Court upheld the federal prohibition of marijuana under Congress’ Commerce Clause power, even as to a medical marijuana patient who grew marijuana for her own use and not for sale or distribution to anyone.See 545 U.S. 1, 1-10 (2005). The Court explained that when “a general regulatory statute bears a substantial relation to commerce, the de minimis character of individual instances arising under that statute is of no consequence.”Id. at 17 (internal quotations omitted). The Court further explained that “[o]ur case law firmly establishes Congress’ power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic ‘class of activities’ that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce.” Id.; see also Taylor v. US, 136 S. Ct. 2074, 2081 (2016) (“And it makes no difference under our cases that any actual or threatened effect on commerce in a particular case is minimal.).