There's been some confusion and I think I know why. The link you posted does not show the name brands, the amended version does. Now I understand. https://www.modelaircraft.org/sites/default/files/files/CLA19-02.pdf
Well, that is another oddity - if the proposal was amended (which it can be), there shouldn't be two of them, or at least I don't see why there would be. I think they only voted on the second one.
Note that this rule does not in any way seem open to "interpretation", either. It says something that is quite explicit and clear, if it is explicit and clear, you can't "interpret" it to mean something else ex post facto. "Interpretation" (in the sense that "well it says one thing but we meant something else" {we said "brand" but we really meant meant trademark or service mark}) is prohibited in the General rules.
So, by the rule, the PowerPro brand is not legal (either yours, or the examples), because it is not Spectra brand. However, this one probably IS legal:
because it says Spectra and nothing else, so one might presume it is the brand, although I don't know and the CDs don't know of this is a licensed brand name. Note also that this is the SOLE packaging, it came with clear shrink-wrap and this. There are no other markings of any type. I also strongly suggest it is either counterfeit, or at least, not licensed by Honeywell (maybe run off the same production line as legitimate line, but "off the books", which is very common in Chinese counterfeiting/IP fraud).
So in this one example (the first one I came across that meets the letter of the rules as near as I can tell) both proves that calling for specific brands like Spectra (which is probably not the registered brand name but is the sole identifier on the packaging) doesn't accomplish the presumed goal of limiting legal lines to known-good manufacturers, and that saving the packaging also accomplishes nothing at all, since for all intents and purposes, there isn't any.
Any CD looking at my reel says "yep, says spectra on it and that looks like a brand" and "nope, that says Power Pro brand, that is not permitted, because it's not Spectra or Dyneema". You surely aren't going to be able to dismiss a protest to that effect out hand, and the wording of the rule is perfectly clear.
I actually have no problem with this from a materials, standards, or safety standpoint, since I don't think we should care about the brand or the material of lines at all. But, I think it *does* mean that the rule, as written, *does not allow any synthetic lines of any type*, since I don't think that the brand requirements can be met. You could say "leave it to the CD" but in that case, you don't need any rule at all, just leave it to the CD judgment.
Again, I will test whatever I get, legal by the current rule, or not and determine for myself whether I want to risk my airplane on it.
I think the actual change should say "there is no restriction on the diameter, construction, or on terminations of any construction or material. Safety is assured by passing the preflight pull test", meaning, if it passes the pull test, it's OK, and then it's up to the pilot to decide whether or not to use 8 lb test monofilament or 1/32 music wire.
I don't think we should pass the existing proposal because it ends up being "null" because no lines are compliant.
Brett
p.s. I did a bit of research and Spectra is indeed a trademark (not a service mark) and there is a registration program from Honeywell for it. Spectra is a brand name for a large variety of companies, none of which appears to be anything to do with fishing line, in brief research.
I expect that the first "fix" the proposal will be to change the word "brand" to "certified by the Spectra trademark". Then the problem will be eliminating anyone who owns or has access to a color printer, because anyone download the logo and print it on a package.