NationStates Jolt Archive

Ceorana is now attempting to draft an international trademark/service mark proposal. We ask for any comments at all, and welcome any ways to improve this. We don't feel it should be that contentious, but we could be wrong. We'd especially like to ask for anything you see in the way of loopholes, exploitations, hard-to-see problems, etc, or just anything you disagree with.
UN Trademark Protocol

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the ability to distinguish its products from those of other producers is important to producers of products,

AFFIRMING that this is often done through trademarks: corporation or product names or logos that distinguish a corporation, product or person from others,

BELIEVING that it is important to allow companies the right to distinguish themselves from other companies, because it gives consumers a way to know the producer of a product and determine their reputability,

AFFIRMING that this is a responsibility of the United Nations, since companies and their reputations very frequently operate and travel across national borders,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "trademark" as a mark or name used by a corporation or individual to distinguish their product or service, or to signify that that corporation or individual endorses, supports or certifies a product or service, that meets the following criteria:
a. Mark must not be in common usage as a generic name for a product or service, or a trademark of another company dealing with the same products or services; and
b. Mark must not be inherently descriptive for the product or service;

2. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "textual trademark" as a trademark that is simply a series of words and is recognizable regardless of format, including font, style, position, color, etc.;
b. "non-textual trademark" as a trademark that is not a textual trademark because it uses graphics, pictures, or specifically formatted text;
c. "legal entity" as a corporation or individual;
d. "trademark holder" as the legal entity that first put the trademark into use after its last expiration (if the trademark had never expired, the legal entity that first put the trademark into use), unless said trademark had been transferred to another legal entity, in which case it is the current owner of the trademark,

3. DECLARES that trademarks may not be used in connection with a product or service without the permission of the trademark holder in a way that implies or signifies that the trademark holder or anyone connected to them is sponsoring, endorsing, producing, or otherwise connected to the product or service the trademark is being used in relation to, except in cases when the implication or signification is true;

4. DECLARES that trademarks become void when they have not been used for a period of five years, but may be reprotected if they are put into use again;

5. DECLARES that trademarks may be used by other legal entities, subject to clause 3 and applicable copyright and other laws;

6. URGES nations to set up trademark registries where trademarks can be registered in order to facilitate enforcement of this resolution, and to vest full faith and credit in the trademark registries of other nations.

Okay, go! ;)

6. URGES nations to set up trademark registries where trademarks can be registered in order to facilitate enforcement of this resolution, and to vest full faith and credit in the trademark registries of other nations. Unless I missed something some place this one leaves all this up to individaul nations and there is no action but the UN to do anything. AS many already do this and those that don't will not do it since you only urge them to do so and don't have some UN committee collecting all this informaiton on trademarks to make sure nations are doing it.

Also may be a problem with the
4. DECLARES that trademarks become void when they have not been used for a period of five years, but may be reprotected if they are put into use again;As say nation A's company uses this and for some reason shuts down beyond five years.. Then a comany in nation B decides to use it as their trademark.. so two years down road nation A's company opens up again.. and continues to use old trademarks.. With only individual nations monitoring this one will see a dispute over who had it first or who should have it now. Who will settle this dispute?

Unless I missed something some place this one leaves all this up to individaul nations and there is no action but the UN to do anything. AS many already do this and those that don't will not do it since you only urge them to do so and don't have some UN committee collecting all this informaiton on trademarks to make sure nations are doing it.

Also may be a problem with the
As say nation A's company uses this and for some reason shuts down beyond five years.. Then a comany in nation B decides to use it as their trademark.. so two years down road nation A's company opens up again.. and continues to use old trademarks.. With only individual nations monitoring this one will see a dispute over who had it first or who should have it now. Who will settle this dispute?
Well, I was thinking that since compliance is mandatory, the courts in the nations in question would have to look at evidence as to how long the trademarks had been used for and when they went out of use, and then when the new trademark was used. Registries just make it easier for the companies to enforce it in the courts. In your example, the courts ought to find that nation A's company couldn't use the trademark, because it was now the property of nation B's company. But this could be hard to enforce across national borders. Do you think I need to have a UN registry for this, like on UN Patent Law?

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I approve of the general idea, and so does my government, but...

What happens in cases where unrelated businesses in two or more separate nations are already using the same trademark, possibly even for goods of the same basic type?

Considering the thousands of nations & billions of people involved, are there actually enough possible trademarks for every firm in every nation to have a different one (or more) without the ones issued after this passes needing to be made more & more complex?


Oh, and the St Edmundan Antarctic's government would like to know whether you are also considering a separate resolution about protecting 'hallmarks', too, or whether we should add that to our own list of projects...

Do you think I need to have a UN registry for this, like on UN Patent Law?
Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United NationsI would say yes the UN needs to have a common registry of all national trademarks so individual nations have a common place to go to find them... If the UN is getting involved it might as well have a list of what is going on in all nations stored some place down in one of the file rooms in sub-basemt twelve.. or werever it would be stored.

As far a disputes between nations most nations would be biased toward their own national product in that they want to keep it in operation making money for them.. through jobs and taxes. Thus if my complany was to use say a Smiley as trademake for it Blueberry Sodas and close doors on the company for whatever reason we would want to help Blueberry Sodays keep that trademark.. Especialy if say nation B's beer company for CowBrew Beer was now using it. As this goes to the next persons concern over two companies in two different nations using same trademark for about same time. Here if say it were the Smiley Face on Blueberry Soda in Nation A one cold see why they would have problems with Nation B CowBrew Beer using same trademark..

Kids grabbing the Smiley Face in the brown bottle; instead of bluelips and tongue get drunk. So who would come in to mediate the issue of who keeps the trademark.. As both would have strong support from their own nation based on how popular the product is in that region and where it's been sold.

I approve of the general idea, and so does my government, but...

What happens in cases where unrelated businesses in two or more separate nations are already using the same trademark, possibly even for goods of the same basic type?
I'll have to add something about that, probably similar to the Patent Law clause.

Considering the thousands of nations & billions of people involved, are there actually enough possible trademarks for every firm in every nation to have a different one (or more) without the ones issued after this passes needing to be made more & more complex?
I don't think that should be a problem. There are a virtually infinite number of trademarks, and even a slightly different pattern, as long as its distinguishable, is OK. Additionally, this only applies to companies using the same product or service.

However, you do have a point, and I'd like to close that up if possible. Do you have any ideas? I'm thinking something about it doesn't matter if two nations don't have any trade relations with each other or something, but what if they start...

Non-textual logos can be copyrighted anyway, so that wouldn't be something actually caused by this proposal.

I'm kind of rambling now. I'd appreciate any input on this subject.

Oh, and the St Edmundan Antarctic's government would like to know whether you are also considering a separate resolution about protecting 'hallmarks', too, or whether we should add that to our own list of projects...
Well, hallmarks actually kind of fall under this proposal, because trademarks include certification marks, which kind of include hallmarks. But you'd probably be free to do something more detailed on hallmarks, we don't currently plan on doing a separate resolution for them.
I would say yes the UN needs to have a common registry of all national trademarks so individual nations have a common place to go to find them... If the UN is getting involved it might as well have a list of what is going on in all nations stored some place down in one of the file rooms in sub-basemt twelve.. or werever it would be stored.

As far a disputes between nations most nations would be biased toward their own national product in that they want to keep it in operation making money for them.. through jobs and taxes. Thus if my complany was to use say a Smiley as trademake for it Blueberry Sodas and close doors on the company for whatever reason we would want to help Blueberry Sodays keep that trademark.. Especialy if say nation B's beer company for CowBrew Beer was now using it. As this goes to the next persons concern over two companies in two different nations using same trademark for about same time. Here if say it were the Smiley Face on Blueberry Soda in Nation A one cold see why they would have problems with Nation B CowBrew Beer using same trademark..

Kids grabbing the Smiley Face in the brown bottle; instead of bluelips and tongue get drunk. So who would come in to mediate the issue of who keeps the trademark.. As both would have strong support from their own nation based on how popular the product is in that region and where it's been sold.
I'll think about adding a registration/arbitration committee to it.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Another in a series of resolutions better confined to the capitalist world. I don't actually have the knee-jerk "kill" instinct as with the copyright resolution, but I'm definitely concerned at the sharp right turn the UN has been taking lately.

I've got two (practical) problems mainly. St Edmund brought up the first one, and secondly I'm concerned that two companies in completely different parts of the globe in the same business can very easily have the same name. Delivery businesses, for instance, are likely to converge on the word "express".

Let's take an example of two delivery companies, one in Ceorana and one in Kelssek, which both have the name World Express. Both of them have established brands in their respective countries, have different identities, and the only instance the two might possibly be confused is when parcels are sent from Kelssek to Ceorana and vice versa. Neither is going to be setting up business in the other's turf because Kelssek is an IFTA signatory and effectively embargoes all non-members. But one was set up after the other. It isn't very fair to make one of them give up the name, is it?

Even without the crimp of the IFTA coming into the picture, there are some situations which will arise and don't seem very fair. Like the conflict between Apple Computers and Apple Records, with the Beatles suing Steve Jobs to give up the Apple trademark because, they say, he broke an agreement not to enter the music business by setting up iTunes. The case is still in the courts, of course, but assuming Apple Computers has to give up the trademark?

Another in a series of resolutions better confined to the capitalist world.
Actually, I think this could be very useful in non-capitalist economies as well. It is always a bonus to be able to tell who made a certain product, or who certified a certain product.

I've got two (practical) problems mainly. St Edmund brought up the first one, and secondly I'm concerned that two companies in completely different parts of the globe in the same business can very easily have the same name. Delivery businesses, for instance, are likely to converge on the word "express".

Let's take an example of two delivery companies, one in Ceorana and one in Kelssek, which both have the name World Express. Both of them have established brands in their respective countries, have different identities, and the only instance the two might possibly be confused is when parcels are sent from Kelssek to Ceorana and vice versa. Neither is going to be setting up business in the other's turf because Kelssek is an IFTA signatory and effectively embargoes all non-members. But one was set up after the other. It isn't very fair to make one of them give up the name, is is?

Even without the crimp of the IFTA coming into the picture, there are some situations which will arise and don't seem very fair. Like the conflict between Apple Computers and Apple Records, with the Beatles suing Steve Jobs to give up the Apple trademark because, they say, he broke an agreement not to enter the music business by setting up iTunes. The case is still in the courts, of course, but assuming Apple Computers has to give up the trademark?
Yes, that needs to be fixed.

Here's my next draft. I don't want to require registration of trademarks, but I feel that registration should confer some additional benefits.

UN Trademark Protocol

Category: Free Trade
Strength: Significant
Description: The United Nations,

RECOGNIZING that the ability to distinguish its products from those of other producers is important to producers of products,

AFFIRMING that this is often done through trademarks: corporation or product names or logos that distinguish a corporation, product or person from others,

BELIEVING that it is important to allow companies the right to distinguish themselves from other companies, because it gives consumers a way to know the producer of a product and determine their reputability,

AFFIRMING that this is a responsibility of the United Nations, since companies and their reputations very frequently operate and travel across national borders,

1. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution, "trademark" as a mark or name used by a corporation or individual to distinguish their product or service, or to signify that that corporation or individual endorses, supports or certifies a product or service, that meets the following criteria:
a. Mark must not be in common usage as a generic name for a product or service, or a trademark of another corporation or individual dealing with the same products or services that operates in the same regions or has plans to operate in the same regions (if the same trademark is already used multiple times at the time of the passing of this resolution, it is guaranteed no protection under this resolution, unless events occur so that it is only used by one corporation or individual);
b. Mark must not be in common usage as an inherently descriptive term for the product or service;
c. In the cases of non-textual trademarks, mark must not be a simple geometric shape with no other qualifiers;

2. DEFINES, for the purpose of this resolution:
a. "textual trademark" as a trademark that is simply a series of words and is recognizable regardless of format, including font, style, position, color, etc.;
b. "non-textual trademark" as a trademark that is not a textual trademark because it uses graphics, pictures, or specifically formatted text;
c. "legal entity" as a corporation (including nonprofit) or individual;
d. "trademark holder" as the legal entity that first put the trademark into use after its last expiration (if the trademark had never expired, the legal entity that first put the trademark into use), unless said trademark had been transferred to another legal entity, in which case it is the current owner of the trademark;

3. FOUNDS the United Nations Trademark Registration and Arbitration Authority (UNTRAA) for the purpose of maintaining a registry of trademarks that have been registered by their trademark holder and arbitrating international disputes concerning trademarks;

4. URGES trademark holders to register their trademarks with UNTRAA by submitting the trademark and identifying the legal entity, product, service and/or certification it is used in conjuction with;

5. DECLARES that trademarks, registered or unregistered, may not be used in connection with a product or service without the permission of the trademark holder in a way that implies or signifies that the trademark holder or anyone connected to them is sponsoring, endorsing, producing, or otherwise connected to the product or service the trademark is being used in relation to, except in cases when the implication or signification is true;

5. DECLARES that trademarks become void when they have not been used for a period of five years, but may be reprotected if they are put into use again;

6. DECLARES that trademarks may be used by other legal entities, subject to clause 3 and applicable copyright and other laws;

7. DECLARES that all disputes between legal entities based in different nations concerning this resolution shall be arbitrated by UNTRAA, and that nations may, if they wish, refer intranational disputes concerning this resolution to UNTRAA, whose opinion shall be legally binding.
How's that? I made it so trademarks can be used where there is no contact between corporations in different regions, but then I'm trying to figure out what to do if contact does occur between the two regions.

Yes, but trademarks are most often used as a marketing tool, a "brand" through which people can be persuaded to spend more money on something than they would otherwise. Non-capitalist economies don't always need this.That's not my main point, though.

I think we also need something about deliberate use of confusingly similar marks. There was a case about a coffee chain in China calling itself Xing-ba-ker, with "xing" in Chinese meaning "star" and ba-ker meant to sound like "bucks". They used a circular logo with a green border and a black coffee cup in the middle. I believe Starbucks managed to shut that down. Add something to allow action to be taken about that, and I think it's good to go.

How's that? I made it so trademarks can be used where there is no contact between corporations in different regions, but then I'm trying to figure out what to do if contact does occur between the two regions.

That does go some way towards solving the problem. I'll think further about it.

As for the patent and Copyright effort, Love and esterel support this one.

We would like to ask the author to allow a few years period for developping nation before being mandated, asking them to phase in measures in this period.

Also just a question of personnal interest, I would like to know if logos (as Nike's one for example) may be trademarked or Copyrighted?

[OOC: I'm sick and tired of intellectual-property law. The first two resolutions were enough; now give it a rest.]

We would like to ask the author to allow a few years period for developping nation before being mandated, asking them to phase in measures in this period.
I don't see what purpose that would have. This is mostly being administrated at an international level, so there wouldn't be much to "phase in". I'll remember that if stuff is moved back to the national level, or someone gives me a compelling reason to add it currently.

Also just a question of personnal interest, I would like to know if logos (as Nike's one for example) may be trademarked or Copyrighted?
Both. Logos are a primary form of trademark, and I believe they can be copyrighted as work of creative value as well.

[OOC: I'm sick and tired of intellectual-property law. The first two resolutions were enough; now give it a rest.]
I'll keep that in mind. I'll continue with this effort, but I might work on something else in between.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

I don't see what purpose that would have. This is mostly being administrated at an international level, so there wouldn't be much to "phase in". I'll remember that if stuff is moved back to the national level, or someone gives me a compelling reason to add it currently.


Ok, let's imagine that Im a small entrepreneur in indonesia, that i have 2 small/medium factory producing shoes, that 200 peopleworks in these factories, and that national labor legislation is repected in these 2 factories.

Now let' imagine that the logo in these shoes is obviously pretty close to Nike's one. Do you really want to close the factory tomorrow and put all these workers out of work?

I really don't think so, it's why all TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) as this one and your previous 2 on patent and copyright have to respect progressive implementation in time.

Both. Logos are a primary form of trademark, and I believe they can be copyrighted as work of creative value as well.

[QUOTE=Ceorana]Thanks for yuor answer it's clearer for me now

I see this as unnecessary since we have already passed a UN wide copyright act which would also cover trademarks.

there is also the possibility of trademarks being duplicated accidentally as well. after all this is a big world and if you give two different people the same idea they might well duplicate each others work.

Ms Midori Kasigi-Nero
Deputy Ambassador

after all this is a big world and if you give two different people the same idea they might well duplicate each others work.Indeed. Just ask Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz.

I see this as unnecessary since we have already passed a UN wide copyright act which would also cover trademarks.
I don't think a name of a company/product or especially of an individual is copyrightable under most nations' laws, for good reason (it's not of much creative value).

there is also the possibility of trademarks being duplicated accidentally as well. after all this is a big world and if you give two different people the same idea they might well duplicate each others work.
That's why I was thinking of making the trademarks only be violated when the companies operated in the same areas.

I'm going to let this rest for a while. I may come back to it soon or later.

Enrique Lopez
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ok, let's imagine that Im a small entrepreneur in indonesia, that i have 2 small/medium factory producing shoes, that 200 peopleworks in these factories, and that national labor legislation is repected in these 2 factories.
Now let' imagine that the logo in these shoes is obviously pretty close to Nike's one. Do you really want to close the factory tomorrow and put all these workers out of work?
I really don't think so, it's why all TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) as this one and your previous 2 on patent and copyright have to respect progressive implementation in time.

Does it really take "a few years" just to change the logo that they're applying?!?

Does it really take "a few years" just to change the logo that they're applying?!?

In the example I give, as there is an abscence "trademark/patent/copryghts" laws in those nations, no one can seriously blame the factory, the employee and even the boss for violating "trademark/patent/copryghts".

It's why even if I fully agree with "trademark/patent/copryghts" laws, I think it's pretty important to give time to people to shift their economic activity which will no violate "trademark/patent/copryghts" anymore. We have just to give them a chance (few years) to make these change.

Many nations seem to feal UN legislation is the best way to fight plagiarism. Perhaps this legislation could also tackle that subject? I'm expecting trademark legslation to pass pretty easily considering how well copyright did.

Hey what happened! I loved this proposal!