Refusing or failing to pursue action against a violation of a trademark can cause a trademark to be considered abandoned and therefore invalid. It is a genuine legal concern. This is supposed to prevent individuals and companies from “sitting” on a trademark without the intention of using it.

So you are saying that you think that "Postman" declining to pursue legal action against "Postwoman" might lead to a court deciding that "Postman" is a generic mark - do I have that correct?

Can you point to a case even vaguely close to this fact pattern?

>So you are saying that you think that "Postman" declining to pursue legal action against "Postwoman" might lead to a court deciding that "Postman" is a generic mark

Per this posting from a law firm [1], as your question is stated with the inclusion of "might" the answer is yes. Apparently it can go one of three ways: abandoning, not impacting/abandoning, or diminishing. Two of these results are bad for the trademark holder.

I'd assume a C&D letter would be sufficient to get a proper result or at least should be the first move in these matters, but I'm not a lawyer nor play one on TV or online.

[1] https://www.dbllawyers.com/can-lose-trademark-rights-dont-su...

There are tons:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_generic_and_genericize...

You don't necessarily need to sue competitors for being misleading, but you do generally have to show you are trying to defend your trademarks and a lawsuit is a nice expensive papertrail.

I assert that literally zero of these cases are even close to this one in terms of the degree of abandonment represented by failure to take action against Postwoman.

Can you specify a single one that you think is similar?

You could have made a simple search and found more confirmation than I could possibly provide. Even the USPTO has top-level search results to that effect.

https://www.google.com/search?q=failure%20to%20protect%20tra...

Which of these cases specifically do you assert is similar to this one?

Trademarks have to be defended or else you can indeed lose it. That's a fact. Copyrights on the other hand are not the same. You may be confusing the two and lumping them all together under "IP" but there are many legal differences between different types of IP.

I am very familiar, and have formally studied, trademark genericization. Your patronizing comment is not helpful.

Can you point to a mark that you think was genercized in a similar fashion to what you project happening if Postman does not pursue legal action against Postwoman?

Not a lawyer, but in this particular case it appears they reaffirmed the lower court stating the vendor couldn't sell products with trademarked Greek organization lettering (though he could make up ones using the Greek alphabet as demonstrations) and that they could continue to sell their "double raised crest backing" paddle which the group was requesting they be banned from doing.

So the trademark was protected it would appear. Even though the infringing company makes a good case (laches) for selling said products without regard from the fraternities/sororities for decades (in fact, they were selling to these organizations, so they were generally aware of the company's existence and practices).

...that case supports my argument, not yours. Not sure why you are linking it.

Sorry but I trust the EFF more than I trust you

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...

>>>Quite simply, the view that a trademark holder must trawl the internet and respond to every unauthorized use (or even every infringing use) is a myth. It’s great for lawyers, but irritating and expensive for everyone else. And when done clumsily or maliciously, it chills free expression.