[Mithaldu]

> not quite sure why my comment is getting downvoted.

Kneejerk responses.

You're entirely right that Google at least has to legally take some action, as otherwise others can point at the precedent when doing actual attacks on Google trademarks.

[couchand]

It's worth pointing out that this view, while common, is a misconception. IANAL, but as I understand it a company need only address blatant, public infringement. If it could be reasonably argued that this is a parody (and that can at least be argued, even if you disagree), it wouldn't be considered for the purposes of abandoned trademarks.

And a minor point - "precedent" is commonly used to mean simply "that which came before" but it has a very specific legal definition (generally just decisions issued by a court) that doesn't apply here.

[MartinCron]

Has anyone ever provided an example of a brand losing its trademark status for not aggressively addressing minor/maybe/kind-of/sort-of infringement? It seems like a scary story designed to keep IP lawyers fully employed.