"An additional note, trademark lawyers are often obligated to try and sue people over trademarks, even if they'd rather not, because if they don't zealously defend their trademark, it's considered 'weakened' and that can then become evidence against them in some future case when a different party infringes."
This is mostly false as a concept, and false as written.
It's pretty much a fiction trademark lawyers use to try to convince people they really like them, but they have to be suing them now.
There is no special "if you don't sue people, you lose" defense for trademarks, on that front it's the same laches defense as anything else.
About the only thing you risk is loss of distinctiveness, and only then if you are not otherwise doing things to try to maintain brand distinctiveness.
In fact, there is a specific "doctrine of progressive encroachment" that allows you to let people minimally invade, and only sue for infringement when there use expands past something small and minimal.
Even in cases where all of this fails, nobody has "lost a mark" except to genericness (which is unpreventable, in reality). The last case i'm aware of to confront this issue, the defendant was still barred from using the mark in the future, the plaintiff just got no money damages.
boo hoo.
