[Congressional Record Volume 145, Number 28 (Tuesday, February 23, 1999)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Pages E249-E250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                 THE MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. HOWARD COBLE

                           of north carolina

                    in the house of representatives

                       Tuesday, February 23, 1999

  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 three Congresses. While the 
Administration has still 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

[[Page E250]]

one application in their country and in their language--receive 
protection by each member country of the Protocol.
  There is opposition neither to the legislation, nor to the 
substantive portions of the treaty. The State Department continues its 
attempts to resolve differences between the Administration and the 
European Union regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members 
of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the Protocol. More 
specifically, the European Union receives a separate vote in addition 
to the votes of its member states. While it may be argued that the 
existence of a supra-national European trademark issued by the European 
Trademark Office justifies this extra vote, the State Department views 
the provision as antithetical to the fundamental democratic concept of 
one vote per state. The State Department also has raised concerns that 
this voting structure may constitute a precedent for deviation from the 
one-state-one-vote principle in future international agreements in 
other areas.
  These differences need to be settled before the Secretary of State 
will recommend to the President that a ratification package be 
presented to the Senate. The State Department is working closely with 
the Subcommittee on Courts and Intellectual Property of the Committee 
on the Judiciary, which I chair, to formulate a proposal to the 
European Union, and subsequently to the members of the Protocol, to 
amend the Assembly voting procedures in a way which would provide for 
input by the European Union without circumventing the one-member-one-
vote principle.
  Mr. Speaker, it is important to move this legislation forward at this 
time to encourage negotiations between the State Department and the 
European Union; and to assure American trademark holders that the 
United States stands ready to benefit from the Protocol as soon as it 
is ratified.

                          ____________________