|
Contact: Ed McDonald
(202) 225-3065
|
|
COBLE REMARKS ON TRADEMARK TECHNICAL AND CONFORMING AMENDMENT ACT OF 2010
Washington,
Mar 3, 2010 -
Mr. COBLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2968, and recognize myself for such time as I may consume. This legislation, Mr. Speaker, makes technical but important revisions to the Madrid Protocol Implementation Act, which Congress passed in 2002. The Act is one of the most significant legislative accomplishments in the trademark realm in the past 15 years.
By way of background, the United States is a signatory to the Madrid Protocol, an international treaty that allows a trademark owner to seek registration in any of the countries that joined the Protocol. This means an American trademark owner pays the Patent and Trademark Office in Alexandria, Virginia, a nominal fee to expedite the necessary paperwork overseas. This process makes it easier and less expensive for U.S. trademark owners to acquire protection for their intellectual property in other countries.
The 2002 Act that implements the Protocol has functioned well through the years, but must be updated. The main purpose of the bill is to bring provisions for maintaining extensions of protection under Madrid in conformity with provisions for maintaining registrations. Maintenance filings with the PTO by the trademark owner are necessary to perpetuate protection on the trademark. This bill also authorizes the PTO Director to permit applicants to correct good-faith and harmless errors.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the legislation includes a study provision that was inserted at the behest of the other body. It directs the Intellectual Property Enforcement Coordinator and the Department of Commerce to evaluate and report on treatment of smaller businesses involved in trademark litigation. Along with Chairman Conyers and the chairman of the subcommittee, the distinguished gentleman from Georgia, I believe the study text could be clarified further. I'm happy to report that Senator Leahy has agreed to work with us on making the necessary minor revisions to improve the language. We intend to move this language at a later date on a different vehicle. We just don't want to delay further consideration of S. 2968 by requiring the other body to pass the bill for a second time. In closing, I urge the Members to support S. 2968.
|
Print version of this document
|
