[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 146 (2000), Part 13]
[Senate]
[Pages 18417-18418]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                 THE MADRID PROTOCOL IMPLEMENTATION ACT

  Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, we are fast approaching the end of this 
Congress and we have much unfinished business. While there are many 
items of importance to the American people that remain undone, I will 
speak today about a single bill that has been languishing for some time 
despite the fact that it is wholly uncontroversial. That bill is S. 
671, the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.
  This bill is important to American businesses, both big and small. As 
the International Trademark Association explained in a letter to me on 
February 9, 2000 on behalf of its 3,700 member companies and law firms, 
``the practical benefits of the Madrid system, such as ease of applying 
and renewing trademark registrations internationally, will be of 
tremendous benefit to U.S. companies'' and, in particular, the benefits 
to ``small, entrepreneurial companies which do not have the financial 
means to seek separate national registrations for their trademarks in 
every country where they wish to do business.'' The bill and the 
Protocol are also supported by the American Intellectual Property Law 
Association and the Information Technology Association of America.
  I first introduced this legislation in the 105th Congress as S. 2191 
and again in this Congress in March, 1999. The Judiciary Committee 
reported S. 671, favorably and unanimously, on February 10, 2000. 
Unfortunately, the legislation has been languishing on the Senate 
calendar for the past eight months. In the House of Representatives, 
Congressmen Coble and Berman sponsored and passed an identical bill, 
H.R. 769, on April 13, 1999. This marked the third time and the third 
Congress in which the House of Representatives had passed this bill.
  There is no opposition to S. 671, nor to the substantive portions of 
the underlying Protocol. The White House recently forwarded the 
Protocol to the Senate for its advise and consent after working to 
resolve differences between the Administration and the European 
Community, EC, regarding the voting rights of intergovernmental members 
of the Protocol in the Assembly established by the agreement. These 
differences over the voting rights of the European Union and 
participation of intergovernmental organizations in this intellectual 
property treaty are now resolved in accordance with the U.S. position. 
Specifically, on February 2, 2000, the Assembly of the Madrid Protocol 
expressed its intent ``to use their voting rights in such a way as to 
ensure that the number of votes cast by the European Community and its 
member States does not exceed the number of the European Community's 
Member States.''
  Shortly after this letter was forwarded by the Assembly, I wrote to

[[Page 18418]]

Secretary of State Madeleine Albright requesting information on the 
Administration's position in light of the resolution of the voting 
dispute. At a hearing of the Foreign Operations Subcommittee on April 
14, 2000, I further inquired of Secretary Albright about the progress 
the Administration was making on this matter.
  With the voting rights issue resolved, President Clinton transmitted 
Treaty Document 106-41, the Protocol Relating to the Madrid Agreement 
to the Senate for ratification on September 5, 2000. United States 
membership in the Protocol would greatly enhance the ability of any 
U.S. business, whether large and small, to protect its trademarks in 
other countries more quickly, cheaply and easily. That, in turn, will 
make it easier for American businesses to enter foreign markets and to 
protect their trademarks in those markets.
  Senators Helms and Biden moved promptly to hold a hearing in the 
Foreign Relations Committee on September 13, 2000 to consider the 
Protocol, and I commend them for acting quickly so this treaty may be 
considered by the full Senate before we adjourn. Members on both sides 
of the aisle have worked together successfully and productively in the 
past on intellectual property matters, and I am pleased to see these 
efforts again with the Protocol and implementing legislation.
  Passage of S. 671 would help to ensure timely accession to and 
implementation of the Madrid Protocol, and it will send a clear signal 
to the international community, U.S. businesses, and trademark owners 
that Congress is serious about our Nation becoming part of a low-cost, 
efficient system to promote the international registration of marks.
  The Madrid Protocol Implementation Act is part of my ongoing effort 
to update American intellectual property law to ensure that it serves 
to advance and protect American interests both here and abroad. The 
Protocol would help American businesses, and especially small and 
medium-sized companies, protect their trademarks as they expand into 
international markets. Specifically, this legislation will conform 
American trademark application procedures to the terms of the Protocol 
in anticipation of the U.S.'s eventual ratification of the treaty. 
Ratification by the United States of this treaty would help create a 
``one stop'' international trademark registration process, which would 
be an enormous benefit for American businesses.
  S. 671 makes no substantive change in American trademark law but sets 
up new procedures for trademark applicants who want to obtain 
international trademark protection. This bill would ease the trademark 
registration burden on small and medium-sized businesses by enabling 
businesses to obtain trademark protection in all signatory countries 
with a single trademark application filed with the Patent and Trademark 
Office. Currently, in order for American companies to protect their 
trademarks abroad, they must register their trademarks in each and 
every country in which protection is sought. Registering in multiple 
countries is a time-consuming, complicated and expensive process--a 
process which places a disproportionate burden on smaller American 
companies seeking international trademark protection. The practical 
benefits of the Madrid Protocol system will be to provide small and 
medium-sized U.S. businesses with faster, cheaper and easier protection 
for their trademarks.
  I again urge the Senate to promptly consider and send to the 
President the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act.

                          ____________________