[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 150 (2004), Part 15]
[Senate]
[Page 20722]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                   STATEMENT OF INTENTION ON S. 2796

  Mr. CRAIG. Mr. President, as our colleagues know, Senator Durbin and 
I have introduced S. 2796, pertaining to the legal treatment of 
certification marks, collective marks, and service marks.
  Federal law protects all four kinds of marks equally. Specifically, 
15 U.S.C. Sec. 1503 and 15 U.S.C. Sec. 1504 provide that service marks, 
collective marks, and certification marks ``shall be entitled to the 
protection provided'' to trademarks, except where Congress provides 
otherwise by statute. However, the clarity of the Federal laws on this 
point has been confused by a recent decision of the Second Circuit 
Court of Appeals in the case of Idaho Potato Commission v. M&M Produce 
Farm and Sales. That decision interpreted the Lanham Act as requiring 
that certification marks should be treated differently from trademarks 
with respect to ``no challenge'' provisions.
  We introduced S. 2796 to underscore the policy that Congress clearly 
intended in the first place. I ask the distinguished Senator from 
Illinois, is that not the case?
  Mr. DURBIN. Mr. President, the Senator from Idaho is correct. Let me 
say to all our colleagues, this bill does not change current law. Our 
purpose in drafting S. 2796 was to make it clear that, in our view, the 
Second Circuit reached an incorrect decision in its interpretation of 
the Lanham Act. S. 2796 would simply restate the original intent of 
Congress when we enacted the Lanham Act, and indicate our support of 
the view that these marks are to be given equal legal treatment by the 
courts, not the anomalous reading that the Second Circuit gave to it in 
the Idaho Potato Commission decision.
  Mr. CRAIG. I thank the Senator for his clarification and hope all our 
colleagues will join us in this effort to protect important public 
policy interests.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. President, I thank the chairman for bringing up for 
consideration legislation providing multiyear reauthorization of the 
Economic Development Administration. EDA provides critical resources to 
communities experiencing significant economic distress and dislocation. 
The partnership between the planning and development districts in my 
State of Arkansas and the EDA has been a successful one. It is my hope 
that this partnership will continue to provide the flexibility that is 
needed to respond to constantly changing economic conditions.
  Mr. BAUCUS. It is my understanding that this legislation preserves 
current EDA practices and administration of the Planning Partners 
Program for economic development districts, as currently authorized 
under Public Works and Economic Development Act of 1965. This is a 
critical program providing important continual professional and 
technical assistance to rural and distressed communities to assist in 
developing economic strategies and implementing infrastructure 
improvements. It is essential that the legislation maintain this 
program consistent with current authorization, practices and policies.
  Mr. INHOFE. Mr. President, that is correct. The EDA planning program 
is an important program which provides technical assistance to 
communities to develop and implement comprehensive economic development 
strategies. As a matter of fact this bill will provide an historic 
increase in funding for this important program and will give planning 
partners the additional resources to address local needs and improve 
the delivery of federal economic development efforts.
  Mrs. LINCOLN. I thank the chairman for his strong leadership and 
attention to this important matter.

                          ____________________