ABSTRACT
The use of words in trademark law has always had a chilling effect on fundamental constitutional principles and trademark regimes have consistently sought to strike an appropriate balance between trademark protection and the respect of free speech.1 Under the existing doctrine of trademark infringement, only ‘commercial use’2 may provide grounds for violation, ensuring, therefore, that there is a clear distinction between commercial speech and freedom of expression. Given the axiomatic nature of free speech and its constitutional character, the criterion of ‘commercial use’ is inserted to identify the circumstances under which a trademark owner would be able to challenge the use of a word.
