Your argument hinges on your word "abuse". Except there's no abuse. Nothing stops Ian from conducting business legally with that company name. If CAs have a problem, they need to fix the cert system. What should those guidelines look like? "You need to have a legal entity, but not one that conflicts with any big brand names people might know, even if you're legally entitled to conduct business under that name"?
This is kind of the point really isn't it. There was no forgery or abuse here, the certificate was issued in full accordance to the rules set out in the CA/Browser Forum Baseline Requirements and the EV SSL Guidelines.
If there were any abuse or forgery taking place here the certificate would have been revoked for those reasons and the CA would be held to account for mis-issuing a certificate. That's not what happened.
Given the name of the account that made the comment I'm curious about the affiliation of the author, perhaps they would share that in the interest of transparency?
There was no forgery.