[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.