I don't agree. I think it's confusing because it's the absence of coverage here rather than the existence of coverage, and it points to where we disagree on the analogy.

Software is copyrightable subject matter. Copyleft hacks that.

Racially disparaging logos are not trademarkable subject matter.

That's probably why you're saying it's not a copyleft-like hack, because it's pushing this logo out of subject matter area entirely.

I'd argue it's a different type of hack: finding a part of the legal system that can be used to put pressure on a bad actor and change their behavior in unrelated areas.

Note specifically that they aren't forbidden from using the name or logo now; they just can't do so exclusively. That part is the cute hack: it removes their incentive to be racist, but doesn't change their racism.

GPL removes the incentive to proprietarize, but doesn't cause proprietary software types to stop mistreating users.