International Trademark Protection
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31150/ajshr.v6i6.3740Keywords:
trademark, manufacturer's mark, trade mark, individual trademarks, registered trademarkAbstract
The Madrid Protocol facilitates a streamlined system for international trademark registration, enabling businesses to protect their marks across multiple jurisdictions through a single application process. Administered by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), this system reduces the cost and complexity of filing separate applications in each country. While the Protocol covers a broad range of trademarks for goods and services, it excludes certain types such as certification and collective marks. Applicants benefit from centralized administration and a unified procedure for registration, renewal, and transfer. Despite its advantages, the Madrid Protocol also presents limitations, including dependency on national registrations and country-specific restrictions. Nonetheless, it offers a practical route for businesses—especially SMEs—to establish international brand presence and enforce trademark rights efficiently.
References
[1] D. Stockemer, Stockemer, and Glaeser, Populism around the world, Cham: Springer International Publishing, 2019.
[2] R. M. Sherwood, Intellectual property and economic development, Routledge, 2019.
[3] Y. Alhunieti and D. Aljabari, “Digital Protection of the Trademark in Jordanian Law. A Comparative Study,” in Intelligent Systems, Business, and Innovation Research, Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, 2024, pp. 729–741.
[4] M. H. Zakir et al., “Evolving Trademark Laws in a Global Context: A Comparative Study of China and Pakistan,” Migration Letters, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 985–994, 2024.
[5] S. K. Medase and S. A. Basit, “Trademark and product innovation: the interactive role of quality certification and firm-level attributes,” Innovation and Development, vol. 13, no. 1, pp. 1–41, 2023
[6] A. A. Bassiouny, “Protecting Well-known Trademarks: A Comparative Study,” Journal of Positive School Psychology, pp. 673–681, 2022.
[7] A. Y. Abdugopirovich, “Types Of Legal Protection Of A Trademark (Service Mark) In Foreign Countries: The Example Of The Madrid System,” Turkish Journal of Computer and Mathematics Education (TURCOMAT), vol. 12, no. 4, pp. 1068–1073, 2021.
[8] D. Heath, D. Davidson, and C. Mace, “The strategic effects of trademark protection,” The Review of Financial Studies, vol. 33, no. 4, pp. 1848–1877, 2020.
[9] R. Halsbury, Reddaway v. Banham, 1896, cited in C. Colston, Principles of Intellectual Property Law, 1999, pp. 199, 309.
[10] African Madrid System Members: Algeria, Botswana, Egypt, Kenya, Lesotho, Liberia, Mozambique, Morocco, Namibia, Sudan, Zambia.
[11] The Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks, Apr. 14, 1891, 828 U.N.T.S. 389.
[12] A. Bogsch, “The First Hundred Years of the Madrid Agreement Concerning the International Registration of Marks,” Indus. Prop., vol. 30, p. 389, 1991.
[13] R. Callmann, Callmann on Unfair Competition, Trademarks and Monopolies, 4th ed., § 26.03, 1981.
[14] D. Odigie, Modern Law of Torts in Nigeria, 2003, p. 143 et seq.
[15] W. Cornish and D. Llewelyn, Intellectual Property: Patents, Copyrights, Trademarks and Allied Rights, 5th ed., 2003.
[16] T. Hansen-Young, “Whose name is it Anyway? Protecting tribal names from cybersquatters,” Virginia Journal of Law & Technology, vol. 10, no. 6, Summer 2005.
[17] J. Schmidt-Szalewski, “The International Protection of Trademarks after the TRIPS Agreement,” Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, vol. 9, p. 194.
[18] D. Gervais, The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, Sweet and Maxwell, London, 1998, p. 110.
[19] J. E. Damton, “The Coming of Age of The Global Trademark: The Effect of TRIPS on The Well-Known Marks Exception to The Principle of Territoriality,” Mich. St. Int L.L. Rev., vol. 20, p. 11, 2011.
[20] A. Kur, “TRIPS and Trademark Law,” in IIC Studies. Studies in Industrial Property and Copyright Law, vol. 18, Max Planck Institute, Munich, p. 99
[21] McDonalds Corp. v. Joburgers Drive-Inn Restaurant PTY, Supreme Court of South Africa, 1996.
[22] K. Goodberlet, “The Trademark Dilution Revision Act of 2006,” J. High Tech L., vol. 6, p. 249, 2006.
