06-20-2014, 04:37 PM
It seems to me that it is correct to point out that the removal of trademark protection is not a direct assault on free speech. In fact, it appears that no restriction of the use of the term is effected. I think also that it would be disingenuous to assert that no impairment in value is intended by this action. That impairment, if achieved, has the effect of diminishing the use of the trademark and/or the adoption of an alternative symbol. The end result that is hoped for, then, is the curtailment of speech.
"It's not what you don't know that gets you in trouble. It's what you think you know that just isn't so."
Mark Twain