NationStates Jolt Archive

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 as well as consumers 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,

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 genre of 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.

Comments?

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Well thought out and carefully drafted. Two comments:

We find Clause 2d to be very difficult to understand. We'd suggest some work on trying to simplify it.

Also, as we think we mentioned in another venue, we're bothered by the reprotection provision of Clause 4. An example: Corporation A is the holder of a trademark. It isn't used for 5 years and protection lapses. Corporation B begins to use the trademark. Does the proposal allow Corporation A to now come in and claim it again? Or would the use by Corporation B void the other's claim?

Lorelei M. Ahlmann
Ambassador-at-Large

UN Trademark Accord

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 as well as consumers 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,

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 genre of 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;

3. DECLARES that the first user of a trademark after its last expiration, if any, is the holder of that trademark, unless the original user has sold or transferred it to another legal entity, in which case the trademark holder is the legal entity having last received it;

4. STIPULATES that trademarks may not be used in connection with a product or service, without the permission of the trademark holder, in a way that untruthfully 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;

4. DECLARES that the the provisions for a trademark under clause 4 lapse when the trademark has not been used for a period of five years; the trademark may then be put into use and protected by the same or another legal entity;

5. URGES nations to set up trademark registries in order to facilitate enforcement of this resolution, and to vest full faith and credit in the trademark registries of other nations;

6. REMINDS nations that applicable copyright or other laws may also affect trademark use rights.

I think this covers most of your issues; I've also trimmed down clauses and sentences where possible in order to improve the clarity of the resolution.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

I'm not getting that "kill" instinct, so I suppose I'm not vehemently opposed to it.

There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to resolve duplication. For instance, Kelssek has a state enterprise called National Insurance, which funnily enough, sells plumbing. Okay, yes, it is a nationalised insurance provider. But I'm sure "National Insurance" is a very common name for an insurance company, private or no. Who gets right to the trademark?

And there are only so many names companies can come up with for the same kind of service. Again, the problem of duplication, and in deciding who gets to use it.

This kind of decision can be very unfair to the parties involved, especially when there is no real problem of confusion, as would be the case in many, many circumstances given the sheer size of the NSWorld.

How would a grandfather clause be, along the lines of this:
UN Trademark Accord

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 as well as consumers 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,

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 legal entity dealing with the same genre of products or services that could feasibly share customers or viewers with the prospective trademark holder; 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;

3. DECLARES that the first user of a trademark after its last expiration, if any, is the holder of that trademark, unless the original user has sold or transferred it to another legal entity, in which case the trademark holder is the legal entity having last received it;

4. STIPULATES that trademarks may not be used in connection with a product or service, without the permission of the trademark holder, in a way that untruthfully 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;

4. DECLARES that the the provisions for a trademark under clause 4 lapse when the trademark has not been used for a period of five years; the trademark may then be put into use and protected by the same or another legal entity;

5. DECLARES that legal entities that are in violation of this resolution at the time of passage may keep their trademarks, but this resolution comes into force upon any of the conflicting trademarks that lapses or is transferred;

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

7. REMINDS nations that applicable copyright or other laws may also affect trademark use rights.

I'm not getting that "kill" instinct, so I suppose I'm not vehemently opposed to it.

There doesn't seem to be a mechanism to resolve duplication. For instance, Kelssek has a state enterprise called National Insurance, which funnily enough, sells plumbing. Okay, yes, it is a nationalised insurance provider. But I'm sure "National Insurance" is a very common name for an insurance company, private or no. Who gets right to the trademark?

And there are only so many names companies can come up with for the same kind of service. Again, the problem of duplication, and in deciding who gets to use it.

This kind of decision can be very unfair to the parties involved, especially when there is no real problem of confusion, as would be the case in many, many circumstances given the sheer size of the NSWorld.

OOC: I'm inclined to agree with Kelssek here, because I see this causing problems, and I just don't see that there's enough of an initial problem to warrant a UN resolution addressing it, both for Kelssek's reasons and the fact that companies that want to be successful will already be finding ways to distinguish themselves from their competition for advertising purposes.

I'm also wondering why this is so broad. I could see the UN wanting to make sure multinational corporations don't have the same logo as another multinational corporation in a different set of nations just to avoid the confusion, but there doesn't seem to be any legitimate reason for the UN to regulate all trademarks across the board.

Basically, I think this will cause more problems than it will solve, and it's just micromanagement of an issue that doesn't even need plain old management.

Companies that are already successful will want to do differentiate themselves. But other companies may want to 'piggy-back' on each other's reputations in order to gain the benefits of that company. Without trademark protections, you could eliminate all ways to distinguish your company from another one that had superior products.

Another thing that falls within the scope of this legislation is certification marks. Without trademark protection of them, it's a lot harder to determine if a product really is certified by another company.

It applies to all companies because many companies go multinational at some point or another, and because consumers buy products from companies in more than one nation.

Companies that are already successful will want to do differentiate themselves. But other companies may want to 'piggy-back' on each other's reputations in order to gain the benefits of that company. Without trademark protections, you could eliminate all ways to distinguish your company from another one that had superior products.

You mean aside from the superior products themselves, right? That's a rather large distinguishing feature, I think. I'm inclined to let consumers figure these things out on their own. In the short run, it's an inconvenience for the consumer and a benefit to the lazy piggy-backing corporation, but in the long run the piggy-backing corp is going to lose money and the consumer will know that they need to be careful. And they do need to be careful, with all those evil corporations out there. :cool:

Also, when a corporation starts using another corp's logo, the corp they copied from usually finds out pretty quick, and can either appeal to the national judiciary or update their logo. There are perfectly viable business and national solutions to this problem. So why is a UN solution warranted?

Another thing that falls within the scope of this legislation is certification marks. Without trademark protection of them, it's a lot harder to determine if a product really is certified by another company.

See above points.

It applies to all companies because many companies go multinational at some point or another, and because consumers buy products from companies in more than one nation.

I dig that. But in the case of multinationals, why start applying this prior to them actually being multinationals? And in the case of consumers buying products from companies in more than one nation, why are we coddling them?

You mean aside from the superior products themselves, right? That's a rather large distinguishing feature, I think. I'm inclined to let consumers figure these things out on their own. In the short run, it's an inconvenience for the consumer and a benefit to the lazy piggy-backing corporation, but in the long run the piggy-backing corp is going to lose money and the consumer will know that they need to be careful. And they do need to be careful, with all those evil corporations out there. :cool:
But you can't see the product if there's packaging around it, which could look exactly the same as another corporation's.

Also, when a corporation starts using another corp's logo, the corp they copied from usually finds out pretty quick, and can either appeal to the national judiciary
assuming there're trademark laws
or update their logo.
Thereby losing some of their reputation that they have worked so hard to build up, and then be copied again, and again, like a game of cat and mouse.
There are perfectly viable business and national solutions to this problem. So why is a UN solution warranted?
Because companies and people span borders. The only recourse a nation has against a company that's violating trademark law in their nation is to ban them from doing business there, and if the company just imports, ban their imports. A UN solution is much more efficient.

See above points.
But this has much more problematic repercussions. If a nation begins exporting goods with a phony CM on them, or even allows corporations to use false CMs domestically, it dramatically reduces the value of the CM, because consumers don't know if it's real or not, even in their own country. Hence, it becomes much harder for industries to regulate themselves.

I dig that. But in the case of multinationals, why start applying this prior to them actually being multinationals?
Simply because they'll want to keep their trademark when they go multinational. We want as little "grandfathering" as possible.

And in the case of consumers buying products from companies in more than one nation, why are we coddling them?
It doesn't just help the consumers. It helps companies advertise and protect their reputations.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

But you can't see the product if there's packaging around it, which could look exactly the same as another corporation's.

So? I've already said that I know it would be an inconvenience for consumers, and that I'm not particularly worried about that.

assuming there're trademark laws

Indeed. Why bother having them in nations like...oh...let's go way out on a limb and say the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders, where there are no trademark laws?

If nations have real need of trademark laws, they'll make them. It gets a bit more complicated in the case of multinationals, which is why I think there's the possibility for good UN legislation on that, but as a general rule I'm disinclined to have trademark laws for all nations when a fair amount won't need them, either because they're an anarchy like the Federation or because all of their industries are nationalized.

Thereby losing some of their reputation that they have worked so hard to build up, and then be copied again, and again, like a game of cat and mouse.

So?

Because companies and people span borders. The only recourse a nation has against a company that's violating trademark law in their nation is to ban them from doing business there, and if the company just imports, ban their imports. A UN solution is much more efficient.

If a company has a problem obeying the laws of a nation, they should be banned from doing business there. It only makes sense to disallow a company from operating in a nation if they're just going to break the laws of the nation. Regardless of efficiency, why the hell would we want to keep them there?

But this has much more problematic repercussions. If a nation begins exporting goods with a phony CM on them, or even allows corporations to use false CMs domestically, it dramatically reduces the value of the CM, because consumers don't know if it's real or not, even in their own country. Hence, it becomes much harder for industries to regulate themselves.

And when have I given you the impression that I care about industries being able to regulate themselves?

Simply because they'll want to keep their trademark when they go multinational. We want as little "grandfathering" as possible.

Ah. Fair enough.

It doesn't just help the consumers. It helps companies advertise and protect their reputations.

I don't care for coddling big business anymore than I do coddling consumers.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

Ah. Well, I've made my points, and since your response to most of them seems to be "I don't care", I don't think there's a lot more I can say on the subject.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Ah. Well, I've made my points, and since your response to most of them seems to be "I don't care", I don't think there's a lot more I can say on the subject.

Kingsley Thomas
Ambassador to the United Nations

Perhaps not. But you could at least respond to the two points that didn't involve statements of apathy. Or not. It's your perogative.

Former Minister of UN Affairs
Edward Jones

OK.

Indeed. Why bother having them in nations like...oh...let's go way out on a limb and say the Fuel-Injected Federation of Texan Hotrodders, where there are no trademark laws?

If nations have real need of trademark laws, they'll make them. It gets a bit more complicated in the case of multinationals, which is why I think there's the possibility for good UN legislation on that, but as a general rule I'm disinclined to have trademark laws for all nations when a fair amount won't need them, either because they're an anarchy like the Federation or because all of their industries are nationalized.
But see my response to your previous objection. Since all companies have the potential to become multinationals, it's better for everyone to have to respect international trademark law.

If a company has a problem obeying the laws of a nation, they should be banned from doing business there. It only makes sense to disallow a company from operating in a nation if they're just going to break the laws of the nation. Regardless of efficiency, why the hell would we want to keep them there?
This is a good point. However, imports are more of a problem.

After reading the comments of the honorable representative of Kelssek, we've done some serious rethinking about this issue. Given the nature of trademarks and the vast number of nations within the NSUN, we seriously doubt the practicability of establishing internationally-binding requirements concerning them.

Patrick T. Olembe
Minister for Foreign Affairs

But see my response to your previous objection. Since all companies have the potential to become multinationals, it's better for everyone to have to respect international trademark law.Sounds like amputating the arm because of a hangnail.

If a nation becomes multinational, then it needs to worry about international trademark laws. Say my brother has the nickname "Pepsi". He opens a little valet service, and calls it Pepsi's Car Operators; PepsiCO for short. If he never operates outside of the surrounding towns, the name doesn't much matter. If he decides to go nationwide, or international, then he should probably consider changing the name because of that other Pepsi.

The analogy I'm thinking of is a nation with a teired tax system. The poorest citizens are charged 1%, the richest 90%. Since a poor person has the potential to become rich, should they be taxed 90%? Or if that's too extreme, should a middle-class person be taxed based on potential?

I think this would probably work very well if it only focused on multinational corporations. That sort of thing is right up the UN's alley, as opposed to micromanag... er... well... you get my point.

If a nation becomes multinational, then it needs to worry about international trademark laws. Say my brother has the nickname "Pepsi". He opens a little valet service, and calls it Pepsi's Car Operators; PepsiCO for short. If he never operates outside of the surrounding towns, the name doesn't much matter. If he decides to go nationwide, or international, then he should probably consider changing the name because of that other Pepsi.

But consider this scenario: My brother has the nickname "Coca-Co". He operates a portable outhouse system around town, calling it Coca-Co Latrines, or Coca-CoLa for short. Now, a big multinational portable outhouse system springs out of nowhere, also called "Coca-CoLa". My brother's little service came first, but since the bigger company went multinational first, it 'usurped' my brother's trademark.

*shrug* Shit happens (no pun intended).

In the NS world, micromanaging every little thing within a nation is unnecessary, regardless of one's view on NatSov. Something like this is best kept international. Forcing international trademark law on every little mom-n-pop shop would cause far more troubles than the race to multinational concerns.

It may not be perfect, but I certainly think it's the lesser of two evils.

:confused: I go away for an exteded weekend and suddenly even the inteligent people start sounding like they haven't a clue about what they are talking about.

First of all, and I think the resolution vaguely mentions this, trademark is narrowly defined within the product or the service sector where it is located. A valet service and a latrine company have nothing to do with soft drinks and so no trademark violation is incurred. In the real world there are the following completely unrelated companies all with registered trademarks on the word "Arrow," Arrow (shirt manufacturers), Arrow Electronics, Arrow Group Industries (maker of utility sheds) and probably a number of other product lines and service industries.

But on the other hand, if Joe Starbucks wanted to start a coffee house, he is out of luck.

I find the sue them or loose them aspect of trademark law exceptionally annoying, and I tend to go into the nat sov side most of the time, but I draw an exception here. Trademark is more than just a fancy form of copyright; it's a corporate identity. People see that identity and associate it with the company. That trademark then carries the reputation of the company who owns the trademark, and conversely abuses of that trademark and have a drastic and significant impact on the company that owns that trademark.

Pelican Cola is the number one leading soft drink in Tzorsland. (Which actually isn't saying much.) Now suppose some two bit nation (as opposed to Tzorsland which is 128 bit) decides to form some cheap rip off company and uses our trademarks. Let's suppose that they do not go international for purposes of this discussion, but they are competing against the international Pelican Cola in the regional market. Now let's further suppose that the faux Pelican Cola puts arsenic in their product and creates a public scandal. Profits for the real Pelican Cola in that nation will be destroyed; news reports will circulate around the world with the trademark and the reputation of Pelican Cola will be permanently tarnished throughout the world.

So as long as there is a chance of confusion, it should be enforced. It should not be a question of both corporations being international.

Sounds like amputating the arm because of a hangnail.

If a nation becomes multinational, then it needs to worry about international trademark laws. Say my brother has the nickname "Pepsi". He opens a little valet service, and calls it Pepsi's Car Operators; PepsiCO for short. If he never operates outside of the surrounding towns, the name doesn't much matter. If he decides to go nationwide, or international, then he should probably consider changing the name because of that other Pepsi.

The analogy I'm thinking of is a nation with a teired tax system. The poorest citizens are charged 1%, the richest 90%. Since a poor person has the potential to become rich, should they be taxed 90%? Or if that's too extreme, should a middle-class person be taxed based on potential?

I think this would probably work very well if it only focused on multinational corporations. That sort of thing is right up the UN's alley, as opposed to micromanag... er... well... you get my point.

Bah. You stole my thunder. :p