[PASSED] Foreign Trademark Recognition

[Linux and the X]

We oppose this for the same reason we opposed your copyrights treaties. We will, of course, implement it similarly.

[Auralia]

In that case, no objections, just an abject fear of the various colours of the spectrum being claimed as trademarked products by the multitudous WA nations

I doubt that will happen. You can't just "claim" a trademark; you have to actively use it when distributing a product. Furthermore, trademarks are limited to a particular segment of the market; for instance, the exclusive rights of a trademark associated with a particular chocolate bar can only be enforced against the distributors of other confectioneries.

These are all the definitions of the noun version of design. Nowhere does it accommodate for a colour being a design. And even an author can misinterpret their own proposal.

9, 10 and 11 could all apply.

We oppose this for the same reason we opposed your copyrights treaties. We will, of course, implement it similarly.

Copyrights are not at all similar to trademarks. Would you mind explaining your objections?

[Linux and the X]

We oppose this for the same reason we opposed your copyrights treaties. We will, of course, implement it similarly.

Copyrights are not at all similar to trademarks. Would you mind explaining your objections?

Our problem with this (as with FCR) is that it forces recognition of foreign intellectual property even in member states that do not have notions of intellectual property.

[The Saturnian Republic]

9, 10 and 11 could all apply.

A colour is not an outline, nor a sketch, nor plan, organization, structure, or combination. So, no. Isn't that a good thing, anyway? Acknowledging a colour as a trademark would unnecessarily take this proposal into gray areas.

[Araraukar]

Acknowledging a colour as a trademark would unnecessarily take this proposal into gray areas.

I see what you did there.

Anyway, the whole reason for this resolution is the point of recognizing foreign trademarks. So if another nation has accepted a colour as trademark (OOC: As at least one RL nation has done!), and the trademarked products are sold in your nation, then you have to recignize it too, even if you thought it was ridiculous.

[Ruior]

Acknowledging a colour as a trademark would unnecessarily take this proposal into gray areas.

I see what you did there.

Anyway, the whole reason for this resolution is the point of recognizing foreign trademarks. So if another nation has accepted a colour as trademark (OOC: As at least one RL nation has done!), and the trademarked products are sold in your nation, then you have to recignize it too, even if you thought it was ridiculous.

I agree completely with this statement. If a member of my nation built a company based completely on the nicest shade of lavender for their business with linens, I'd hope member nations would recognize that. In fact I don't see why they shouldn't have that ability if it's their most popular color or scent.

OOC: While working on my capstone project this year I learned that 32-Bit color is also nicknamed TRILLIONS OF COLORS. This will never be an issue in the trademark world because not everyone picks a color as a trademark. Hell, even if they did I don't see them hitting trillions anytime soon.

[Linux and the X]

OOC: While working on my capstone project this year I learned that 32-Bit color is also nicknamed TRILLIONS OF COLORS. This will never be an issue in the trademark world because not everyone picks a color as a trademark. Hell, even if they did I don't see them hitting trillions anytime soon.

While that's true, the human eye can't very well distinguish between them. For example, this sentence is in two different colours; can you tell (without analysing the code) where the change is? And that's when they're right next to each other!

[Ruior]

OOC: While working on my capstone project this year I learned that 32-Bit color is also nicknamed TRILLIONS OF COLORS. This will never be an issue in the trademark world because not everyone picks a color as a trademark. Hell, even if they did I don't see them hitting trillions anytime soon.

While that's true, the human eye can't very well distinguish between them. For example, this sentence is in two different colours; can you tell (without analysing the code) where the change is? And that's when they're right next to each other!

I can't tell the slightest difference, however this is also the company's fault if they pick a stupid, similar looking trademark. The only issue I'd see in that case is that some smaller businesses would pick a ever so slightly off shade of a popular business's color, however at this point we're arguing colors, not trademarks.

[Auralia]

If a nation feels that colours should not be trademarkable, they can include "colour" on a prescribed list of forbidden types of trademarks pursuant to section 5(d).

[Linux and the X]

While that's true, the human eye can't very well distinguish between them. For example, this sentence is in two different colours; can you tell (without analysing the code) where the change is? And that's when they're right next to each other!

I can't tell the slightest difference, however this is also the company's fault if they pick a stupid, similar looking trademark. The only issue I'd see in that case is that some smaller businesses would pick a ever so slightly off shade of a popular business's color, however at this point we're arguing colors, not trademarks.

Your argument seems to be that, given the size of the 32-bit colour space, it is unlikely that there would be collisions. However, given the human eye's inability to distinguish between slightly different colours, the entire 32-bit colour space is not actually useful, particularly as the proposal also bans the use of anything confusingly similar to a trademark, so even if the colours are distinguishable in side-by-side comparison, both may be covered by a trademark.

[Auralia]

Bump for comments before submission this weekend.

[Discoveria]

Foreign Trademark Recognition
Category: Free Trade | Strength: Mild | Proposed by: Auralia

Recognizing that businesses often use trademarks to identify their goods or services,

Believing that international recognition of trademarks will reduce consumer confusion in the marketplace, reward businesses for producing higher quality goods and services, and prevent brand piracy,

The General Assembly,

1. Defines "trademark", for the purposes of this resolution, as a group of words, a visual design, an auditory expression, or some combination thereof that is used to identify goods or services from a particular source;
2. Further defines "trademark right", for the purposes of this resolution, as the set of exclusive rights granted to a distributor of goods or services regarding the use of a specific trademark, including the right:
   
   1. to use that trademark to identify goods or services from that distributor, and to distinguish those goods and services from those of other distributors,
   2. to seek damages from and injunction against any other entity using that trademark in conjunction with the distribution of similar goods or services,
   3. to license any of these rights to others, and
   4. to extinguish any of these rights;
3. Further defines "foreign trademark", for the purposes of this resolution, as any trademark for which a trademark right is recognized by the member nation where the relevant distributor is located;
4. Mandates that each member nation recognize the exclusive rights associated with every foreign trademark for as long as the relevant distributors actively make use of their foreign trademarks when distributing goods and services in that member nation;
5. Authorizes each member nation to create reasonable limitations and exceptions to the exclusive rights associated with foreign trademarks, including cases where trademarks are:
   1. merely descriptive of a product or service, or synonymous with a particular type of product or service,
   2. deceptive or fraudulent,
   3. confusingly similar to a trademark that is already recognized by that member nation, or identical to the name of another distributor or geographical location in that member nation, I would strike out "confusingly" as trademarks do not necessarily have to cause confusion to be considered too similar. I would also be cautious of using "identical". I'd rewrite as follows: "similar to a trademark that is already recognized by that member nation, or to the name of another distributor or geographical location in that member nation,"
   4. on a prescribed list of forbidden trademarks or forbidden types of trademarks created by that member nation, so long as such a list remains consistent with the goals of this resolution, or
   5. in violation of general restrictions on freedom of expression;
6. Clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as requiring member nations to recognize domestic trademarks;
7. Further clarifies that nothing in this resolution should be interpreted as limiting the World Assembly from further legislating on trademarks.

Looks good to go!

[Auralia]

I would strike out "confusingly" as trademarks do not necessarily have to cause confusion to be considered too similar.

Really? I see no harm in having two similar trademarks if they do not cause confusion in the marketplace.

I would also be cautious of using "identical".

I'll change "identical" to "confusingly similar" as well.

[Auralia]

Submitted for a test run.

[Alberrta]

Approved. Best of luck on this.

[Auralia]

~70 approvals without a campaign. Will be resubmitting later this week.

[Charlotte Ryberg]

Id love to see this pass as a resolution in the WA, but maybe expand this to include Intellectual Property and Patents?

Patents are already protected by the General Patent Charter, though I intend to repeal it at some point as it prohibits nations from allowing biological matter to be patented.

Copyright is already protected by Foreign Copyright Recognition.

I may in the future write a proposal granting protection to industrial designs and other forms of intellectual property.

The patenting of biological matter is a very controversial issue, especially is respect of the question of who's genes is who. If biological patents were allowed then a company could potentially be able to patent anything just because they discovered it, causing a lot of legal problems and complexities.

[Auralia]

The patenting of biological matter is a very controversial issue, especially is respect of the question of who's genes is who. If biological patents were allowed then a company could potentially be able to patent anything just because they discovered it, causing a lot of legal problems and complexities.

Discovery is not invention. Any naturally occurring gene should not be patentable.

[Araraukar]

The patenting of biological matter is a very controversial issue, especially is respect of the question of who's genes is who. If biological patents were allowed then a company could potentially be able to patent anything just because they discovered it, causing a lot of legal problems and complexities.

Discovery is not invention. Any naturally occurring gene should not be patentable.

So if the gene is slightly modified to work in a species it didn't evolve in, it's patentable?

[Auralia]

Discovery is not invention. Any naturally occurring gene should not be patentable.

So if the gene is slightly modified to work in a species it didn't evolve in, it's patentable?

It would on whether the modification meets the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement.

[Araraukar]

So if the gene is slightly modified to work in a species it didn't evolve in, it's patentable?

It would on whether the modification meets the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement.

RL example: taking cold-resistant gene from a fish and putting it in a potato plant to make it less likely to suffer from nightfrost.

[Auralia]

It would on whether the modification meets the inventive step and non-obviousness requirement.

RL example: taking cold-resistant gene from a fish and putting it in a potato plant to make it less likely to suffer from nightfrost.

I would be tempted to say yes, if the modifications required to make the gene suitable for use in a potato plant were non-obvious.

[Araraukar]

RL example: taking cold-resistant gene from a fish and putting it in a potato plant to make it less likely to suffer from nightfrost.

I would be tempted to say yes, if the modifications required to make the gene suitable for use in a potato plant were non-obvious.

What would count as "obvious" in gene transfers? (I promise I'll stop this threadjack if this question gets answered somewhat satisfactorily.)

[Auralia]

I would be tempted to say yes, if the modifications required to make the gene suitable for use in a potato plant were non-obvious.

What would count as "obvious" in gene transfers? (I promise I'll stop this threadjack if this question gets answered somewhat satisfactorily.)

I'm not a geneticist, so I can't really say. If I were to write a replacement for the General Patent Charter, I would allow patent offices of member nations to define the term for themselves.

Regardless, this has nothing to do with trademarks.

[Indigo Seas]

Were this to be approved, you would have our support. A quick question though? If we were unaware that a trademark had already been trademarked by another member nation, had never heard of thee country that claimed had it, the trademark is not recognizable in Indigo Seas and was accused of copyrighting another nations trademark, would we be at risk of receiving sanctions from the WA?