Firstly, copyright, trademark, and patent issues are all separate things, with separate processes and applicable bodies of law. I say this to clarify why it's a bad idea to try to handle, say, trademark issues in a copyright licence, and why it works much better to keep them separate.
A strong copyleft licence, such as GPLv3, will do most of what you want, and what it can't do is better done in parallel (see above). Specifically, it will do "must" 2 and 3, and "must not" 1 and 2.
"Must not" 4 does not need to be explicitly prevented, as it would constitute misrepresentation and is generally actionable anyway. If you feel strongly about this, a GPLv3 s7d restriction may be specified.
"Must not" 5 is achieved by the simple business of publishing your source code. At that point the source serves as prior art, which will prevent the issue of (in a perfect world) or can be used later to invalidate (in this world) any patent on a patentable concept expressed in the source code.
"Must" 1 and "must not" 3 are best done with a defensive trademark registration, and a separate trademark policy denying use rights to variants of the code; this approach is far from unknown (example) in the free software world, though not universally loved. A longer exposition of this idea, and a clarification of why it's not a good idea to try to do this in the copyright licence, can be found here.