The text seems semantically clear. I myself could use my philosophical proposal for a Subject term ( the same theoretical, semantical ground which I used in my student paper 1974 for my proposal for a more abstract Subject logic). Thus the "Subject term" would be the Trademark in question- for example, BRIE, concerning such kind of cheese from this geographical region- and the "Subject variables" bound by the Subjet term (trademark, respectively Subject quantor in Subject logic) could be the variable quality description- standards.
Thus: f.e. BRIE, and security terms- variable with standards used, changed in times or procedures- brie1, brie2 (index-values by my new function theory, presented in my unpublished papers Moments of Oneness where even the philosophical, basic ideas for my proposal for a new paradigm of science, based in a new, "relativized" concept of Reality (thus even new, more abstract Philosophy, with new kind of Ontology, Theory of Knowledge, Philosophy of Psychology, Biology etc. The subject variables- f.e. brie x (indexvalue) could be used in both the database describing the Trademark BRIE (which standands used, when, ingredients, etc)- in descriptive terms specifying the qualities (standards, better quality examinations, energy sustainability etc. in the year given).
Resulting betterment: by using my Subject term semantics the legistlation could both use current practices and texts, but specify better the difference between general trademark term and variable, descriptive terms, without the minor terminological mitch match possibility. That the subject variables should be given in the Trademark database, could give more clarity to the changes in the evolving trademark.