I firmly believe that what you say is not true -- you don't have to litigate every trivial instance of your trademark being violated. AFAICS, this is an urban myth that developed from the potential (but usually unlikely) threat of genericisation through overuse, and the utility of claiming it to be the case by IP lawyers.

I really don't, for instance, believe the Lego porn is going to lead to people using "lego" to refer to any other kind of brick. This is because I don't believe any of Lego's competitors are going to stand up in court and say "Well, *of course* we should be able to refer to our bricks as legos. Did you not see them fail to go after that pornography site that used such obviously fake Lego bricks?" That's why I ask for evidence that what you're saying is true.

Of course, if you are right, please wait five years, and then start your own lego brick company, citing the lack of any court action against this slashdot post as evidence that the Danish company lost the mark years ago.

Fair use in trademarks most certainly does exist. See Nominative fair use.

Also, please cite the law that says a company must defend the trademark in all cases.

>> So why in the hell would you spend money to meddle in foreign politics that don't affect you in any way?

> Because people outside Australia may very well end up being affected by it. Western governments have a habit of citing other governments' policies as a way to make those policies more palatable to their own citizens. The British have CCTV cameras at every street corner, let's also put them on our streets. Software patents are allowed in the U.S., let's harmonize the legislation. Australia thinks of the children and censors the Net, we should do the same!

> For instance, even though I'm not in the U.S., I donate to the EFF. It's a global world. We're running out of places where we can hide from these things.

This is exactly right, and why EFF tries to work internationally too: for instance, last week we wrote about how the interpretation of New Zealand's Section 92A law could affect other countries and smuggle three strikes rules through. New Zealand's language originally came from the US (via Australia), but the interpretations of the law have been very different. If New Zealand took one pro-three strikes stance, it would be quickly used as an argument for doing the same thing in other states.

Other countries can also be an inspiration. I know that the French have been inspired by New Zealand activists successful campaign to fight off Section 92A; the Australian battle against Net censorship will be noted by politicians elsewhere who might otherwise think that blocking sites would be a kneejerk vote-winner.

The EFF has an action alert that help you get started, although calling your representative directly is good too.

FYI, Al-Haramain and both the EFF wiretapping cases (the class action against AT&T, and the new suit against the government) are currently before the same court and judge, Judge Vaughn Walker. All the cases are continuing.

It ate a lot of my youth; the only way you could log on if you weren't an Essex student was through nefarious means, through the UK's pre-Internet packet-switched-system. I spent a lot of Summer nights waiting for an open incoming slot. It was a fantastic environment to explore in the dead of night, by the glow of a 1200/75 modem. What was especially strange was reading lots of tech magazines and science fiction predicting that one day you'd be able to converse using your computer in a mystical, virtual environment -- and then at night, I'd go there.