> Second, Canonical is not “required” to enforce its mark in every instance or risk losing it. The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. […] Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment.
That paragraph cites the court decision https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=950778076210138...:
> The evidence in this case shows that Metalock Corp. has and is continuing to take reasonable steps to maintain its rights in the mark, to use that mark, to license its use, to advertise it and to prosecute infringers. The owner of a mark is not required to constantly monitor every nook and cranny of the entire nation and to fire both barrels of his shotgun instantly upon spotting a possible infringer. Lawyers and lawsuits come high and a financial decision must be made in every case as to whether the gain of prosecution is worth the candle. These defendants have not proved that because of the lack of efforts by plaintiffs in "policing" use of the mark, that METALOCK has become so diluted by widespread use by others that it has lost its distinctiveness.
My interpretation is that companies do indeed have to prosecute a high enough fraction of infringements to protect their trademark, but they don’t necessarily have to prosecute a given infringement. So, for example, Postman could keep their trademark if they left “Postwoman” alone, as long as they later sued “Post Man” for infringement.
EFF is debunked this myth many many many times I wish people would stop spreading it, as it just an excuse for Over Aggressive enforcement that companies that DESIRE to do it use to divert the bad PR, "We had no choice" sounds alot better than "We want to crush any competition"