Global Registration: When to Register Trademarks Outside the US
Globalization has significantly affected trademark portfolio practice in recent years. U.S.-based companies now sell and promote their products or services online throughout much of the world via online commerce and social media. Trademark owners must therefore now secure registration in many more countries to ensure their brands are adequately protected in all countries in which they exploit or are likely to exploit their marks, writes Jaime Rich Vining.
July 27, 2017 at 04:42 PM
8 minute read
Globalization has significantly affected trademark portfolio practice in recent years. U.S.-based companies now sell and promote their products or services online throughout much of the world via online commerce and social media. Trademark owners must therefore now secure registration in many more countries to ensure their brands are adequately protected in all countries in which they exploit or are likely to exploit their marks. Generally, a trademark registration has no extraterritorial effect. That means its effectiveness stops at the border of the country where it was granted. There are various treaties and systems in place that enable a trademark applicant to register a trademark in a number of countries through a single registration, as opposed to filing a separate application in each one. For example, a European Union Trade Mark (EUTM) registration, obtained through the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), covers all member states of the European Union. A common misconception, there is no “global trademark,” and to obtain complete “worldwide protection,” it would be necessary to proceed separately or regionally in each of the nearly 200 jurisdictions where it is currently possible to register trademarks. Thus, trademark protection around the world largely remains a patchwork system of national laws and trademark registries.
By way of background, trademark rights in the United States are based on actual trademark use. Using a trademark without registering it can actually give a company rights to a name in the United States, and allow the brand owner to defend the trademark against junior users. The same is not true for most of the developed world, where trademark rights are actually based on the registration, i.e., the “first to file” rule. In these countries, registration is required in order to claim and enforce trademark ownership. This means that brand owners with an eye for international expansion may consider filing applications outside the United States to secure their rights in key strategic countries (or jurisdictions) before launching a new product or service. This is because even if the company is using the trademark, but did not file for foreign trademark registrations early enough, a third party can lawfully own the trademark in a particular country. This can disrupt the manufacture, shipment or distribution of a company's products in or from the country, or allow an opportunistic trademark registrant to hold the trademark “hostage” and extort a high purchase price from the true brand owner. Put simply, registration in foreign countries prevents others from doing so, and from keeping the trademark owner out of the market.
Registering a trademark in other countries where the company's products are available may prevent other businesses from attempting to confuse buyers by using an identical or similar trademark. Similarly, companies should consider “defensive” international filings in countries with high rates of counterfeits, copycats and piracy. While U.S. trademark law provides protections against counterfeit imports, taking the next step of registering a trademark in countries where a company believes the counterfeits are originating can help stifle the flow of illicit goods bearing the company's mark.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllFlorida Court Rules in Favor of Production Co. in Dispute Over Viral Documentary 'Died Suddenly'
Trending Stories
- 1Judge Denies Retrial Bid by Ex-U.S. Sen. Menendez Over Evidentiary Error
- 2Lawyers: Meet Your New Partner
- 3What Will It Mean in California if New Federal Anti-SLAPP Legislation Passes?
- 4Longtime AOC Director Glenn Grant to Step Down, Assignment Judge to Take Over
- 5Elon Musk’s Tesla Pay Case Stokes Chatter Between Lawyers and Clients
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250