I find it interesting how you concluded that I was in the ‘corridors of power’ or that you somehow connected it to ‘elitism’ when there wasn’t any suggestion of that in my writing, or that the person I responded to was one of the ‘regular people’, whatever that means.

You sound like you are woke and just unhappy + looking for an argument lol.

Do you think someone intentionally deleted it?

se7en is king of LYN.
se7en can do whatever.

Buddy, laws ONLY aim to balance competing rights. But they often tip the scale toward protecting trademark holders at the expense of free expression.

The distinction you make about 'use' is also kinda artificial, which reflects your cautious statement of 'do not typically happen'… Because opinions and truthful statements about a mark, even in commercial settings, are integral to keeping public informed and shouldn't be dismissed as part of a legal compromise.

I also noticed you are very careful with your wording.

I think we need to have an agreement on these two views first.
1. Advertising is a very specific medium of communication. Advertisement is not a good medium to fulfill certain communication tasks. I am not talking about law and restriction on advertisement is good, but I think we need to understand why is advertising regulated from the first place.
2. The 'use' of trade mark is also a very specific principle to consider. Trade mark has its purpose and not every mentioning of a mark is an infringement.

In so far, I don't see 'opinions and truthful statements about a mark' 'to keeping public informed' outside of 'trade mark use' in an 'advertisement' are compromised in terms of freedom of speech.

There are many 'commercial settings' where you can express your 'opinions and truthful statements about a mark' 'to keeping public informed'.

I assume this general statement doesn't relate to the fact that it is still, simply, a form of expression, be it from individual or organization regardless of purposes.

You may believe it is out of fairness. I believe the degree in which it's being regulated stems from a society with cultural and political restriction.
Ambiguous point, but no need to split hair. Trademark law allows mentions outside "trademark use," in reality, businesses here avoid mentioning competitors or sharing critical opinions in ads due to fear. The question is where does this fear come from? The line between "mentioning" a mark and "using" it can also be blurred, making highly regulated trademark law a pretty good tool for advocating people to just STFU. If I contrast this to the US, you'll learn that their regulator FTC (Federal Trade Commission) even encourages comparative advertising.

Not that uncommon.

An environmental organization called Save River was sued by a logging company in Miri, for the #StopTheChop campaign and their statement audited turns out to be true. Even though eventually, the big corporation decided to withdraw their lawsuit for whatever reason, it happened.

https://www.business-humanrights.org/en/lat...pp-co-responds/

Or something closer to a for-profit creative commercial. A lawsuit filed against McCurry restaurant that was never a mark infringement to begin with.

https://theedgemalaysia.com/article/counsel...-tussle-mccurry

You take away the commercial context and look purely at expression, we're left with people's ideas and opinions stifled on a large or individual level, not just from regulation, but also out of fear for the consequence here.

Sure

I'm sorry but are we still talking about competitive advertising here and in specifically in relation to the right to exercise ones freedom of speech in such context?

As far as I am concerned, my comment is only on competitive advertising from the beginning.
Are the two cases you mentioned related to competitive advertising?

I'm afraid I might need to consider whether I want to commit to commenting outside of this context.

You can choose to ignore the cases. The principle applies across the board. Expression gets stifled. Fear of consequences keeps people silent. Topic of thread.

I specifically pointed out how different places have different views in competitive advertising, and how drawing the line between commercial activities and personal opinion/expression is simply artificial as commercial context involve opinions and criticism, still fundamental to free speech.

A trademark law, when overly restrictive do hinder freedom of speech. Expression is really not inherently limited by context.

I'm glad you bring up a US case, as the discussion is still within common law jurisdiction.
I did not reply to this point because as I have stated from the start, competitive advertising is restricted and not prohibited.

I re-invite you to see that advertising is a very specific medium of communication. It is highly regulated and ill-suited for a debate for, say 'statement of truth'. Even in the US, as you mentioned, competitive advertising is subject to strict restrictions.
Again, I assert, my statement applies to advertisement, specifically competitive advertising here.

Your claim seems interesting, and commonly heard, to be honest. However, it represents a slippery slope, and every stage needs to be proven. At least on the basis of this claim—specifically about competitive advertising—it seems flimsy to me.
Alas i am not knowledgeable enough to comment on anything other than competitive advertising.
Perhaps another time, when the occasion is more opportune, I might revisit this intriguing topic.