[dragonwriter]

> You don't need a lawyer to go to a courtroom

That...depends on how much you care about the outcome.

> They're very unlikely to sue for damages because the cost of their lawyers far exceed whatever 'damages' are in place here, which I would assume are close to zero.

If they "take you to court" to force a takedown, they are already suing you (for an equitable remedy.) The marginal cost of adding a claim for damages and, on top of that, lawyers fees and costs (which, as you note, may well exceed the actual damages), is very close to $0 once they are already doing that. So, you may choose not to pay for a lawyer for yourself, but that won't stop you from paying for lawyers for the firm suing you.

[jcranmer]

> that won't stop you from paying for lawyers for the firm suing you.

Note that in the US, the usual rule does not allow for shifting attorney's fees to the loser.

[dragonwriter]

> Note that in the US, the usual rule does not allow for shifting attorney's fees to the loser.

While in the US, the default rules in many kinds of cases don't start with loser pays, as in some other systems, there are conditions applicable to most causes of actions which will allow attorney's fees, and the default rules for some claims do assign costs and fees to a party found liable without requiring any additional factors—notably, in the context of a trademark demand letter from the holder of a registered trademark, this includes violation of any of the rights of a holder of a registered trademark, see 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a).