It is absolutely untrue that you risk losing a mark if you do not enforce it widely. There is an obligation to enforce against third party uses which would undermine the distinctiveness of the mark/confuse the public, however not every third party use falls in this category.

Many uses will be completely acceptable and if you do not enforce against them you will not lose your right to enforce against unacceptable uses.

Unfortunately, anyone's future use of startup, where startup is in the same position of the product name/feature will be subject to threats and such. After all, if the product is successful at Apple the only possible reason someone else used startup in a name is because of Apple.

As in, their lawyers won't think twice trying to intimidate someone and will most likely knee jerk react to every use.

I agree that there is a risk that all uses will be pursued and as you allude to, potential damage to a brand is in the eye of the beholder. However you're making a leap from a use which could conceivably harm the distinctiveness of a mark to taking action against every use and appear to attribute this to the lawyers' over-eagerness.

In my experience, most lawyers are reasonable people who will understand the limits of a trade mark better than anyone else. It's often the commercial people who are telling the lawyers to pursue an infringement against the lawyer's advice.

> It is absolutely untrue that you risk losing a mark if you do not enforce it widely. There is an obligation to enforce against third party uses which would undermine the distinctiveness of the mark/confuse the public, however not every third party use falls in this category.

Actually you only have to enforce it in the cases where someone else might argue undermines your trademark, which is far wider.