LEGOs — Is the Plural form of LEGO incorrect?

I am not inclined to investigate whether LEGO should be in caps or not, but I don't see a problem with referring to them in the plural by adding an "s." I agree with the intellectual property argument. Brand names are often the victims of their own success, right? If a brand name is very successful, it becomes necessary for the competition to adopt that brand name to describe their own product, or no one will know what they are selling, or at the very least why they'd refer to it with some lame-sounding alternative. So even with a paper trail, I think it's up in the air what a court would decide. In the course of emails, I like the question, but I think the train has left the station. We could have referred to email messages, email letters, electronic letters, etc. from the beginning. But we didn't and now we are stuck with emails for now. We see the official term electronic correspondence used in a legal or regulatory/bureaucratic context, but it always begs the question in my mind, wasn't it just an email, or was it really some esoteric computer system to which only Big Brother has access?

I have a pet peeve about the use of email, which like cattle and mail is a collective noun. One neither speaks of cattles or of mails, but we regularly speak of emails. Somehow this annoys me but I haven't figured out why. I always try to say, "email MESSAGE" and "email messages". ... I wonder whether this should be a submission to this list or a comment in this place.

The use of "LEGOs" (or, for that matter, "Legos") to describe more than one piece of LEGO is fine.

In the US, we said Legos all the time.

I'm guessing this depends on where you're from. I was brought up in the UK. I only heard Lego used as a mass noun; I never heard anyone talk about "a Lego" or "five red Legos". Then again I can't see anything wrong with it.

Another point: I don't see why anyone needs to write LEGO in all caps, regardless of what they use in their branding. I think Lego looks much better on the page.

continued...

So that when a competitor's product in the future is referred to as LEGO by the media or in other contexts, the company has a paper trail showing that it has vigorously defended its mark over time. (Worse yet, a Chinese knock-off uses LEGO or something very close to LEGO in its branding).

That is, the letter is written to the newspaper, but it's not really about the newspaper as much as it it's about the record for the files, in case it's ever needed in the future.

The newspaper can do what it wants.

The point of the letter is to be on record in protecting the use of the TM...preventing it from becoming genericized due to lack of policing its use.

I agree, the use of a word is not determined by the person who coined it. The company could write a letter asking a newspaper to change "LEGOs" to "LEGO bricks". But I don't see any reason why the newspaper needs to make the change.

Using a brand name as a noun isn't grammatically incorrect. But the company may specify how it likes to see the trade name used in print. So colloquially, "Hand me those LEGOs, please," is probably fine. But if you were writing in a newspaper, "The child threw five LEGOs at his friend's head," you should expect a letter from the company asking for a correction to "threw five LEGO brand bricks," or something similar.