二○一五年十二月美國聯邦巡迴上訴法院作出In re TAM案全院庭審，該判決翻轉過往七十年之判決先例，認定聯邦商標法之詆毀性商標禁止註冊條款，因侵害權利人之受憲法增修條文第1條保障之權利，無法通過嚴格審查而違憲，這在商標法及增修條文第1條法理之領域均屬盛事，然同時期之第四巡迴上訴法院亦面臨Pro-Football, Inc. v. Blackhorse案之爭議，假使該院不採In re TAM案之論點，即有判決歧異之可能，幸最高法院劍及履及地在二○一七年六月之Matal v. Tam案認定上開條款違憲，為該等爭議畫下休止符，不過可預期地，也將對商標審查制度造成嚴重衝擊，全案所呈現者有如言論自由基礎理論與商標法理之衝撞，而我國商標法之公序良俗條款雖尚未有如美國爭議之白熱化，惟未雨綢繆，司法院釋字第744號恰提供了一個得以理性思辨之論壇。 In December 2015, the United States Court of Appeals for theFederal Circuit issued an en banc decision in the In Re Tam case. Thedecision of the Federal Circuit reversed settled case law that has stoodfor the past seventy years. The court held that the “disparagingprovision” of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional as it fails the strictestform of judicial scrutiny in violating the First Amendment rights of atrademark owner. While the ruling is crucial in both the trademark andFirst Amendment world, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the FourthCircuit, however faced another dilemma regarding the Pro-Football,Inc. v. Blackhorse case as there will be a Circuit spilt if the FourthCircuit disagrees with the In Re Tam case. Fortunately, the SupremeCourt concluded that law banning disparaging trademarks isunconstitutional in Matal v. Tam of June 2017. Whereas this case can indeed be interpreted as a clash between fundamental principles of freespeech and trademark doctrine, it sets the stage to review a way toaccommodate First Amendment interest to other values. Although theissues in the “Ordre Public and Morality” provision of the Taiwanesetrademark law is not so present, it is still necessary to take precautions.The J.Y. Interpretation No. 744 is a best forum for us to debate.