Who owns the BRAND?

Really, its a matter of interest that who owns the brand? Is it the Institution that "created" it or is it the consumer? The institution obviously spends millions in shaping up a brand, conducts market research, creates advertisements, makes it available for the user, so on and so forth. But if the user does not buy all of that-more importantly its "proposition" which as most marketers know, is intangible, whats the point of it all? Lets take an example of an iconic brand, Nike which is synonymous with its famous tag line, "Just Do it". Would the institution be happy if its tag line was appreciated by everybody without anybody finding the need to "buy" it or is it happy today that when someone reads/recollects the punch line, he/she is empowered and kind of gets into action right away? I think thats in a sense ownership of the consumer who gets impacted and gets into action by the brand/tag line recall. Another example is that of people refusing to buy any other alternative beverage when another strong brand in the Indian market, Thums Up was pulled off by Coke for a brief period when it bought the brand.At this point of time, the consumer felt the need to have the brand that it rightfully owned. He resisted other brands and was demanding.Coke had to give in and get back Thums Up in the market again.Marketers may go miles and spend buckets but if they cannot create a brand ownership for the consumer, its no use. I also feel that when marketers really start giving ownership to their consumers, thats when they are successful and in away create world class brands. Otherwise, its just ego pampering and living in an Utopian world.