I'm not a lawyer, so I can't, won't, and don't need to answer that. However, people have had their pet projects shut down for way less obvious things than this.
Anyone can make a page with guidelines. If I say someone "photoshopped" an image then I'm violating Adobe guidelines. If "subject to" means I'm acting inside that scope, then I'm subject to them. But if "subject to" means they can do anything about it, then I'm not subject to them.
The way you're talking about the policy isn't making it clear which meaning you intend, but it's very important to distinguish between those meanings.
There's no need to be stubborn about clarifying what you meant. If you use a term, and someone asks what you mean by that term, "I don't need to answer that" is a very strange response.
Civil trademark law effectively means everyone is "subject to" their terms.
They'll send a nasty-gram to enforce their rights as the trademark holder, and the potential resolution could be an ICANN UDRP complaint. Again, I'm not a lawyer, this isn't legal advice, I could be wholly incorrect here.
> Civil trademark law effectively means everyone is "subject to" their terms.
Not in the slightest. Adobe cannot do a single thing at all about people misapplying the word photoshop. Trademark law only applies when someone could conceivably become confused about who is offering a product or service. If you avoid that problem then you can completely ignore the wishes of the trademark owner. Could you argue that this site is causing that confusion? Yes, you could. But you're greatly overstating what other uses trademark could effect. If I look at those brand guidelines and decide to talk about "the firefox" and put their logo uncomfortably close to other logos, I'm going against their desires but they can't stop me in any way.
The policy explains when they give permission, but nothing it says has any effect on which situations need permission.