PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.

Madrid Protocol Implementation Act

Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

Official summary

Version 00 · Introduced in Senate · Jun 18, 1998

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 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.

Read the summary on Congress.gov
PlainBill analysis is coming later. This page presents official source data. We have not yet published a PlainBill explanation for this bill.

Who introduced it

Sen. Leahy, Patrick J. [D-VT] · D–VT

Committees

  • Judiciary Committee
0 cosponsorship records, including any withdrawals

    Actions

    A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.

    1. Read twice and referred to the Committee on Judiciary.

    2. Sponsor introductory remarks on measure. (CR S6570)

    3. Introduced in Senate

    Bill text & related measures

    Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.

    Related bills identified by Congress.gov

    Source last updated: Aug 10, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.

    Explore the bill from different angles

    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.

    Neutral evidence review

    Objective

    Analyze S.2191 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Fairness and public impact

    Progressive lens

    Examine S.2191 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Institutions and government scope

    Conservative lens

    Examine S.2191 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.

    View full prompt & sources
    Individual rights and government power

    Liberty lens

    Examine S.2191 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.

    View full prompt & sources