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.