[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 2]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 2360]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



         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.

                          ____________________