Law professor Eric Goldman points out an interesting essay by attorney Deborah Wilcox that argues restraint when considering cease and desist (C&D) letters to protect corporate trademarks.

Several paragraphs are devoted to the impact of bloggers:

In today's Internet world, legal actions, and even threats of legal actions, are widely publicized, and such publicity must be considered before sending a C&D. As there is nothing to stop a C&D recipient from publicizing the letter, what is now a minor annoyance could become a cause celebre. The adage regarding e-mail content is applicable: Don't commit to paper anything you wouldn't want to appear on the front page of the New York Times. Businesses that send C&D letters blind, without an understanding of whom the accused infringer is or how the term is being used, evince a lack of judgment that could prove costly.

A search for "cease and desist" in any search engine will result in thousands of hits relating to demand letters. Many of the hits are postings by the accused infringers of the actual cease and desist letters sent to them, coupled with detailed and often vitriolic commentary on the dispute. For example, when Gus Lopez was ordered to stop operating a site devoted to his toy collection under the domain name toysrgus.com in 1999, his first response was to replace the site's contents with his description of the controversy, including links to the C&D sent on behalf of Toys "R" Us and the e-mail address of the lawyer who sent it.

Especially with the advent of blogs, news travels fast over the Internet. Such "free publicity" of the trademark owners' enforcement efforts may not be desirable or effective in deterring others. The trademark owner may appear to be heavy-handed and consumers might dislike what they perceive as "the David versus Goliath" approach.

The entire article is perhaps best summarized thus: Don't be an ass or the world will know about it.