Trademark Litigators & Anti-SLAPP Experts - Escalation vs SLAPP

Is This Typical for Trademark Litigation? Or is this SLAPP/Lawfare? I’m a journalist working on an article about an active federal trademark dispute and trying to frame it accurately. General fact pattern: a tiny business with a two-person staff is being sued over a disputed school/business name. What gives me pause is the litigation pattern. Before suit, plaintiff’s counsel sent a New Year’s Eve demand letter with a short response deadline. The defendant offered a narrow compromise: plaintiff could keep operating under its existing business name but stop using the disputed “school” wording/handle. Plaintiff allegedly refused. Plaintiff then sued, filed emergency injunction papers the next day, and included substantial character/reputation attacks in the filings. After losing the preliminary injunction, plaintiff appealed to the circuit court and also opened a follow-up proceeding at the trademark office. By my count, plaintiff-side filings are already around 3,500 pages and counting. For lawyers familiar with IP, anti-SLAPP, or litigation strategy: Is this kind of escalation common in trademark disputes? Is “SLAPP-like pressure” or “corporate lawfare” a more accurate frame? Something else? What facts would make the difference between ordinary aggressive IP enforcement and litigation designed to overwhelm or silence a smaller party? What kind of attorney should I have review this article like this before publication: IP, media/defamation, First Amendment, or litigation counsel? Any help you can give me would be greatly appreciated.