Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Protecting nation brands and country names

Should special protection be given to nation brands and/or country names when it comes to trade marks? The question is attracting more attention and scrutiny

Nation brands

One of the most interesting sessions at last month’s ASIPI Congress concerned nation brands. As anyone who travels regularly knows, many countries have stepped up their efforts to promote business, investment and tourism in the press, online and on TV. Many of them have created distinctive logos (see right) and even annoying jingles (such as “Malaysia – Truly Asia” which always seems to be playing on hotel TVs when I’m travelling).

One of the questions raised at the ASIPI meeting was whether there should be some sort of sui generis protection for nation brands, on the basis that they cannot be effectively protected under most national trade mark laws. I understand ASIPI is setting up a committee to address this question, which probably reflects its importance to many emerging markets in the region.

Nation brands often of course incorporate country names, which raises questions about both protection and prevention of misuse. Jamaica has been pursuing this issue at WIPO’s Standing Committee on Trademarks, Industrial Designs and Geographical Indications in recent years. The topic is again on the Committee’s agenda for its meeting in March this year, and WIPO published a study on it in 2013.

According to its latest proposal for an international agreement, published in September last year, Jamaica’s recommendation aims to promote harmonisation by “protecting country names against conflicting marks, conflicting business identifiers and conflicting domain names, preventing the use of indications consisting of or containing country names in relation to goods or services which do not originate in the country indicated by the country name, and harmonizing the examination and determination of applications for the registration of trademarks which consist of or contain country names, in order to promote consistent and comprehensive treatment and protection of country names among Member States”.

Specifically, it proposes that states shall “protect country names against conflicting marks, business identifiers and domain names and prevent use of indications consisting of or containing country names in relation to goods or services which do not originate in the country indicated by the country name”.


This (revised) proposal is uncontroversial in many respects, though some national representatives have raised fundamental questions about it. The United States, for example, expressed concern that it was based on the principle that “governments owned and controlled their names including nicknames, abbreviations, assigned ISO country codes, etc”. The US delegation also pointed out that the draft text placed a burden on trade mark applicants to “rebut the presumption of deception”.

More fundamentally, the proposal raises a question about whether countries should be given rights at the expense of trade mark owners. Many well-known brands include country names (notably in the transport and utility sectors) and with globalisation many operate outside of their native territory: would they be affected by Jamaica’s proposals? And how far should protection be extended? What about country names in different languages or adjectival versions – think of brands such as French Connection or El Corte Inglés – or abbreviations, historic names or nicknames (such as Kiwi for New Zealand)?

There was considerable interest among the ASIPI audience in this issue and clearly there are many questions relating to nation brands and country names that need to be debated. We look forward, as ever, to receiving your comments.

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

12th annual awards announces winners
Sources say parties in trademark cases could tussle over the meaning of source identifier and whether surveys are fair, following the US Supreme Court ruling
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
In-house sources say the UPC’s determinations on validity, injunctions, and damages could dictate whether companies leave their patents in or out
Business is quiet so far but the UPC has everything it needs to attract patentees, panellists at Managing IP’s IP & Innovation Summit argued yesterday, June 7
Reviewing the list of automatically qualifying degrees every three years is a great idea and should bring more tech-savvy people to the bar
A Foss Patents blog post revealed that Mr Justice Marcus Smith handed down his judgment in Optis v Apple on May 10
Witnesses during a committee hearing criticised proposals to increase some fees by as much as 400%
Sources say they are likely to hire external counsel that can create a lasting first impression but might turn their backs on lawyers who have nothing new to offer
Varuni Paranavitane, of counsel at Finnegan, examines recent decisions by US and UK courts to demonstrate the proof of infringement that was required