[Congressional Record: September 17, 1998 (Senate)] [Page S10535-S10536] From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov] [DOCID:cr17se98-160] TRADEMARK LAW TREATY IMPLEMENTATION ACT Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the consideration of Calendar No. 474, S. 2193. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: A bill (S. 2193) to implement the provisions of the Trademark Law Treaty. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection to the immediate consideration of the bill? There being no objection, the Senate proceeded to consider the bill. Amendment No. 3601 (Purpose: To make certain technical corrections to the Trademark Act of 1946, and for other purposes) Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, Senator Hatch has a substitute amendment at the desk, and I ask for its consideration. The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report. The bill clerk read as follows: The Senator from Pennsylvania [Mr. Santorum], for Mr. Hatch, proposes an amendment numbered 3601. The amendment is as follows: [The bill was not available for printing. It will appear in a future edition of the Record.] Mr. LEAHY. Mr. President, I am pleased that the Senate is considering S. 2193, the Trademark Law Treaty Implementation Act (TLT Act), along with some important technical amendments. I wish that Congress was doing more work on intellectual property issues to maintain America's preeminence in the realm of technology. Specifically I wish we were at conference on the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which would implement the World Intellectual Property Organization treaties. We should also be passing the Patent Bill, which would help America's inventors of today and tomorrow. I am glad however, at the very least, that we are at last considering the TLT Act. the trademark law treaty implementation act The TLT Act, which Senator Hatch and I introduced to implement the Trademark Law Treaty of 1994, is an important step in our continuing endeavor to harmonize trademark law around the world so that American businesses--particularly small American businesses like so many of the businesses in Vermont--seeking to expand internationally will face simplified and straightforward trademark registration procedures in foreign countries. Today more than ever before, trademarks are among the most valuable assets of business. One of the major obstacles in securing international trademark protection is the difficulty and cost involved in obtaining and maintaining a registration in each and every country. Countries around the world have a number of varying requirements for filing trademark applications, many of which are nonsubstantive and very confusing. Because of these difficulties, many U.S. businesses, especially smaller businesses, are forced to concentrate their efforts on registering their trademarks only in certain major countries while pirates freely register their marks in other countries. The Trademark Law Treaty will eliminate many of the arduous registration requirements of foreign countries by enacting a list of maximum requirements for trademark procedures. Eliminating needless formalities will be an enormous step in the direction of a rational trademark system which will benefit American business, especially smaller businesses, to expand into the international market more freely. Fortunately, the Trademark Law Treaty has already been signed by thirty-five countries and was ratified by the Senate on June 26, 1998. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trademark Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association all support the Trademark Law Treaty and the TLT Act. In a letter to me dated July 1, 1998, the International Trademark Association stated that the Trademark law Treaty is ``critical to the success of U.S. companies as they operate in the rapidly expanding and ever increasingly competitive global marketplace.'' The American Intellectual Property Law Association, in a letter to me dated July 13, 1998, explained: ``The Trademark Law Treaty harmonizes a number of the requirements and procedures associated with the filing, registration and renewal of trademarks. It has the potential to bring significant improvements in the trademark practices of a number of important countries around the world in which U.S. trademark owners seek protection. By conforming its trademark law with the obligations of the TLT and ratifying the treaty, the United States can exercise leadership to encourage additional nations, particularly those with burdensome procedural requirements, to also adhere.'' the technical corrections bill I also support the amendment to this legislation of S. 2192, the trademark technical corrections bill. This measure contains several mostly technical amendments to the Lanham Act. The most important of these amendments addresses the status of ``functional'' shapes as trademarks. Functional shapes are those whose features are dictated by utilitarian considerations. Under current law, the registration as a trademark of a functional shape becomes ``incontestable'' after 5 years [[Page S10536]] even though it should never have been registered in the first place. S. 2192 would correct this anomaly by adding functionality as a ground of cancellation of a mark at any time. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the International Trademark Association, and the American Intellectual Property Law Association all support the trademark technical corrections bill. To date, I have not heard any opposition to this amendment. I hope that after passage of the TLT Act, Congress can get back to work on our other pressing intellectual property issues, namely the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the Patent Bill, to fortify American intellectual property rights around the world and to help unleash the full potential of America's most creative industries. Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the amendment be agreed to. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The amendment (No. 3601) was agreed to. Mr. SANTORUM. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the bill be considered read a third time and passed, as amended; that the motion to reconsider be laid upon the table; and that any statements relating to the bill appear at the appropriate place in the Record. The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered. The bill (S. 2193), as amended, was considered read the third time and passed. ____________________