Changing the name now will be quite a bit easier than later, plus the discussions around the product won't be centered around how it's using an already well known name.
EDIT: "but if it turns out to be a problem, we'll figure something out." It really seems to be that it is currently a problem unless your definition of a problem isn't public reception but instead a C&D.
If I was losing faith in the long term sustainability of my core product, and wanted to start hedging by branching out into new spaces with new brands, a rename of the holding company would be my first move.
There was a company we used that had to do a massive re-branding after they realized they couldn't trademark their company name. Doubt it helped their brand visibility to do such a switch.
Let's imagine that the name would be replaced by a slightly let popular company, say one which name begin by an F or a G even one with an M, pichfork would have been already out.
I mean it’s a complete and total wild ass guess but the obvious reason to change one’s name is if you’ve identified another entity that is using that name in a way which could prevent you from global exclusive use of the brand.
It’s the kind of thing that could easily have come up in due diligence for the large recent investment.
reply