[chris_wot]

The issue is one of trademark dilution.

The relevant legislation is codified in 15 U.S. Code § 1125 (c), which states:

  Subject to the principles of equity, the owner of a famous mark that is 
  distinctive, inherently or through acquired distinctiveness, shall be 
  entitled to an injunction against another person who, at any time after
  the owner’s mark has become famous, commences use of a mark or trade name 
  in commerce that is likely to cause dilution by blurring or dilution by 
  tarnishment of the famous mark, regardless of the presence or absence of 
  actual or likely confusion, of competition, or of actual economic injury.

Note that it says "commences use of a mark or trade name in commerce" - use of the trademark in an article that cites it in a quote, or even uses it colloquially, is not going to apply.

The lawyer who sent the cease and desist letter fundamentally misunderstood the law, and frankly I'd be concerned they were giving me incorrect counsel. A lawyer who holds such a fundamental misunderstanding of trademark law is, in my mind, a material risk to any business who needs to protect their trademark, and I'd be getting rid of them as soon as possible. I'm not even talking about the PR blunder here: I'm talking about the fact that they are incompetent, and you never want incompetent legal advise.