The Congressional Record is a unique source of public documentation. It started in 1873, documenting nearly all the major and minor policies being discussed and debated.
“INTRODUCTION OF THE MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT” mentioning the U.S. Dept of State was published in the Extensions of Remarks section on pages E213 on Feb. 27, 2001.
The publication is reproduced in full below:
INTRODUCTION OF THE MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT
______
HON. HOWARD COBLE
of north carolina
in the house of representatives
Tuesday, February 27, 2001
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act. This implementing legislation for the Protocol related to the Madrid Agreement on the International Registration of Marks was introduced in the past four Congresses. While the Administration has not forwarded the treaty to the Senate for ratification, the introduction of this legislation is important in that it sends a signal to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners that the Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, efficient system for the international registration of trademarks.
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) administers the Protocol, which in turn operates the international system for the registration of trademarks. This system would assist our businesses in protecting their proprietary names and brand-name goods while saving cost, time, and effort. This is especially important to our small businesses which may only be able to afford world-wide protection for their marks through a low-cost international registration system.
The Madrid Protocol took effect in April 1996 and currently binds 12 countries. Without the participation of the United States, however, the Protocol may never achieve its purpose of providing a one-stop, low-
cost shop for trademark applicants who can--by filing one application in their country and in their language--receive protection by each member country of the Protocol.
In previous Congresses, the Department of State objected to ratification based on its dispute with the European Community over a voting rights procedure that would apply to the administration of the treaty. An acceptable resolution to this problem was reached during the 106th Congress, and the House passed the bill under suspension of the rules without opposition. Unfortunately, Senate ratification of the Protocol and passage of the implementing language were derailed as result of a private dispute over a mark (``Havana Club'') between a rum distiller (Bacardi) and a French concern (Pemod) which formed a joint venture with the Cuban government. Although negotiations to develop an acceptable compromise failed, it is my understanding that the Senate and trademark community will redouble their efforts to resolve this problem during the present term.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to move this legislation forward as a way of encouraging all parties involved in the Bacardi dispute to intensify their negotiations. House consideration of the Protocol will also assure American trademark holders that the United States stands ready to benefit imminently from its ratification.
I urge my colleagues to support the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
____________________
