In general, companies can just enforce it as they see fit, but nothing forces them to do so.
Quotes from the article:
> That matters because Canonical’s actions reflect a much bigger problem: a pervasive and unfounded belief that if you don’t police every unauthorized use of a trademark you are in danger of losing it.
> The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited.
It could be argued that "Raspberry Pi" might be more at risk of a genericide than "Ubuntu", but we are still far from it, and I am not even sure enforcing their copyright would help in that case.
https://www.raspberrypi.org/trademark-rules/
Though these rules are a bit wordy and sound legalese rather than guidelines.
It might have been easier if the Pi foundation was named differently, but I understand their position, though IMO a disclaimer that this is an unofficial website (as if the -spy didn't give it away) should be enough.
From an article by the EFF:
> The circumstances under which a company could actually lose a trademark—such as abandonment and genericide—are quite limited. Genericide […] is very rare […]. Courts also set a very high bar to show abandonment (usually years of total non-use). Importantly, failure to enforce a mark against every potential infringer does not show abandonment.
[1] https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/11/trademark-law-does-not...
Pay your renewal fee.
AFAIK, corrections more than welcome, there is no legal basis for this idea that you can lose a trademark by not challenging an infringer. You can certainly lose damages: you can't wait until someone built a £million business and then say 'oops, now we take your money'.
If it were true then after 8 years RaspberryPi would have lost their mark, surely.
Not legal advice. Personal comment in no way relating to my employment.