Posted on 07/30/2017 7:20:40 PM PDT by Olog-hai
Scotland has called for Scotch to be defined in U.K. law so its vital whisky industry can be protected after Brexit.
Scottish Economy Secretary Keith Brown has written to officials asking for strong legal protections for the industry, which is worth around £4 billion ($5.3 billion) in exports.
A European Union definition of whisky currently protects sales from substandard products — but EU laws will no longer apply to Britain after the country exits the bloc in 2019. …
(Excerpt) Read more at hosted.ap.org ...
No; I’m saying the UN is a precarious and dangerous entity, whose position on such trademarks would be mercurial and would be favoring the EU.
There have been many examples of the Scotch Whisky Association (SWA)'s Legal Affairs Office using these regulations to "protect" scotch. Some would argue that they're nitpicky to the point of discouraging innovation.
Too late. Japan now makes some of the finest whiskeys.
The “UN” does not make trademark decisions. WIPO is merely an administrative vehicle to facilitate the Paris Convention of 1883 (way before the UN, the Soviet Union or the EU ever blighted earth).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris_Convention_for_the_Protection_of_Industrial_Property
The actual decisions whether to grant or deny protection for a particular trademark (or patent, or design) are made in the member countries.
This is a good thing for all concerned parties.
“Scottish Economy Secretary Keith Brown has written to officials asking for strong legal protections for the industry, “
Purity, labeling, trademark are all valid points. Price, and tariffs are a totally different ballgame.
5.56mm
As long as the UN’s WIPO was allowed to take over this convention, then that is not a good thing, because they will subvert it. The origin is less important than the destination, once the UN was allowed to get its hooks into it (which it did in 1967).
By that you mean someone in country A cannot force country B to register their trademark? Over earlier national trademark rights? Expound please. (I would agree that it's absolutely disgusting that Budweiser USA has trademark rights for horsepi$$ over one of the finest beers brewed on earth - but that is not the norm. If you have a draft for the perfect global IP system, kindly share.)
I said nothing about what you are referring to.
What I said is that the UN cannot be trusted to protect international trademarks. (For the third time.)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.