"If you don't hire enough lawyers to defend your trademark, you'll lose it!"
It hurts small actors in both directions; how many Mom/Pop shops can afford to "aggressively defend" their intellectual property, and how many can afford to actually defend it if a large incumbent comes after them with a frivolous suit motivated by these sorts of ridiculous fears?
I'm not saying the legal system doesn't work that way, it just sounds like a scuzzy argument.
https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
> Following the case it was suggested by Struan Robertson – editor of Out-Law.com – that Microsoft had little choice but to pursue the issue once it had come to light or they would have risked weakening their trademark.[19] This view was also espoused by ZDNet, who noted that had Microsoft knowingly ignored Rowe's site, the company would have risked losing the right to fight future trademark infringements.[20] Robertson opined that – had legal proceedings ensued – Rowe would have made a strong argument for keeping his domain, as he was using his real name and was not claiming to be affiliated with Microsoft.[19]