PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Congressional Research Service
Version 36 · Passed House amended · Oct 3, 1994
Madrid Protocol Implementation Act - Amends the Trademark Act of 1946 to set forth the Madrid Protocol concerning the International Registration of Marks. (Sec. 2) Authorizes the owner of a basic application for mark registration pending before, or of a basic registration granted by, the Patent and Trademark Office who is a U.S. national, is domiciled in the United States, or has a real and effective industrial or commercial establishment in the United States to file an international application with the Office. Requires the Commissioner of Patents and Trademarks to certify that information contained in the international application corresponds to that in the basic application or registration and to transmit the application to the International Bureau of the World Intellectual Property Organization. Authorizes holders of international registrations based on U.S. registrations to request extensions of protection from the International Bureau or the Office. Entitles holders of international registrations to extensions of protection to the United States. Bars protection for an international registration if the Office is the office of origin. Entitles holders of such registrations to a right of priority under the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, subject to certain conditions. Subjects requests for extension of protection to opposition. Bars extension of protection to any mark not registrable on the Principal Register. Grants extensions of protection for international registrations the same effect and validity as registrations on the Principal Register and extends corresponding rights and remedies to holders of such registrations. Cancels or invalidates an extension of protection to the United States for goods and services under an international registration that has been cancelled or is not renewed. Authorizes holders of cancelled international registrations to file applications for registration for a mark for cancelled goods and services with the Office (allowing transformation into a U.S. application). Requires an extension of protection to remain in force for the term of the international registration upon which it is based. Cancels protection unless the holder files an affidavit showing current use of the mark in commerce or nonuse based on special circumstances. Authorizes extensions of protection only to persons who are nationals of, or have other specified connections to, a country that is a Contracting Party or a member of an intergovernmental organization that is a a Contracting Party to the Protocol. Requires an extension of protection to convey the same rights as an existing registration for the same mark if: (1) the extension and the existing registration are owned by the same person; (2) the goods and services listed in such registration are also listed in the extension; and (3) the certificate of extension is issued after the date of the existing registration.
People & committees
Rep. Hughes, William J. [D-NJ-2] · D–NJ
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.
Received in the Senate.
Motion to reconsider laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 387 - 3 (Roll no. 457).
House roll call 457 · Individual votesPassed/agreed to in House: On motion to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 387 - 3 (Roll no. 457).
House roll call 457 · Individual votesConsidered as unfinished business. (consideration: CR H10609-10610)
At the conclusion of debate, the chair put the question on the motion to suspend the rules. Mr. Rohrabacher objected to the vote on the grounds that a quorum was not present. Further proceedings on the motion were postponed. The point of no quorum was withdrawn.
DEBATE - The House proceeded with forty minutes of debate.
Considered under suspension of the rules. (consideration: CR H10462-10465)
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 427.
Mr. Brooks moved to suspend the rules and pass the bill, as amended.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-780.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Judiciary. H. Rept. 103-780.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended).
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Forwarded by Subcommittee to Full Committee (Amended) by Voice Vote.
Subcommittee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held.
Subcommittee Hearings Held.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Intellectual Property and Judicial Administration.
Referred to the House Committee on Judiciary.
Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR E1259)
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2129 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2129 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2129 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2129 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.