Demonstrate how a person's trademark may make it more difficult for them to use their constitutionally guaranteed right to free speech. How can we find common ground between two apparently opposing points of view?

Show how the right to free speech and the ownership of a trademark may sometimes work directly against one another and be in conflict with one another. How can these statements, which at first glance seem to be in direct opposition to one another, be reconciled with one another?

Demonstrate how the ownership of a trademark might come into direct conflict with the right to freedom of expression that is guaranteed by the constitution. How may these seemingly opposing points of view be reconciled with one another to form a coherent whole?

Show how the freedom of speech and trademark ownership may sometimes be in conflict with one another. How can these assertions, which seem to be at odds with one another, be made to agree?