I don't think it's misleading at all, I think it's about as honest as it can get. products can be protected in multiple ways, that's true, but it's not untrue to say that all three of those exist for entirely seperate and different purposes.

artists don't get their copyrights as a consumer protection. the fact that Disney owns star wars isn't so I can be sure I'm buying from disney when I'm buying a star wars product, it's so disney(as the copyright holder, and biggest abuser of copyright law through getting it extended) can make a profit at all off star wars, incentivising them to make anything star wars related.

treating them as a single thing, is inherently the wrong approach. again, it's like saying "net neutrality is a market protection just like trademarks, we should treat them as a single thing. they're three seperate things, with different approaches, and should be treated in a far more nuanced manner than asking "what's your stance on IP?"

they have seperate benefits, disadvantages, and nuances on their details. copyright for 20 years like patent law would probably not be good enough, but patent law for "the life of the creator +65 years" would be even more obviously a shit idea. let alone how short trademarks that aren't in use are for, let alone having things like trademarks be assigned as freely as copyright. they're not interchangable. they sometimes overlap in protecting the same thing at the same time, but they're not the same thing at all.