China Busily Approving 'Trump' Trademarks With Stunning Speed
from the real-subtle,-guys dept
Last month, we discussed the stark reversal by the Chinese government in the matter of many trademarks for President Trump's businesses. In that post, we tried to tackle the question of whether China's sudden approval for a "Trump" trademark on construction services was a violation of the emoluments clause. How you answer this question tends to fall along political fault lines, which is unfortunate. Notably, those that did not find a violation by the trademark approval often suggested that this was one trademark that had been in dispute for years, long before Trump began his campaign for the presidency. Is one single trademark being granted to a sitting President that claims to no longer control his business directly really going to amount to a constitutional violation? Many didn't think so.
But now the conversation will change drastically, as the Chinese government has given preliminary approval on thirty-eight more trademarks to the Trump business, just in the last few weeks. And these trademark applications were filed during the Trump campaign, mind you.
China has granted preliminary approval for 38 new Trump trademarks, a move that offers a potential business foothold for President Donald Trump's family company and protects his name in a country notorious for counterfeiters. Trump's lawyers in China applied for the marks in April 2016, as Trump railed against China at campaign rallies, accusing it of currency manipulation and stealing U.S. jobs. Critics maintain that Trump's swelling portfolio of China trademarks raises the possibility of conflicts of interest.
Dan Plane, a director at Simone IP Services, a Hong Kong intellectual property consultancy, said he had never seen so many applications approved so expeditiously.
Plane said he would be "very, very surprised" if officials from the ruling Communist Party were not monitoring Trump's intellectual property interests. "This is just way over your average trademark examiner's pay grade," he said.
Now, I will stipulate that it's not uncommon for American businesses to file for trademarks in China as a matter of a defensive posture. The country is notorious for the use of known marks by Chinese businesses clearly trading off of the original marks' fame. But that doesn't really matter for the purposes of an emoluments discussion. The fact is that before he was elected, Trump only lost when it came to his trademark applications in China. Now his business, from which he has not divested, and the trust for which he can disolve at any time, is winning at every turn. Given both the volume of applications and the speed with which they're being approved, it seems the famously ham-fisted Chinese government isn't really trying to bother hiding how much favor it's suddenly heaping upon President Trump's business.
And there are those on both sides of the political aisle pointing at what's going on and raising the emoluments clause again.
Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, said the volume of new approvals raised red flags.
"A routine trademark, patent or copyright from a foreign government is likely not an unconstitutional emolument, but with so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an accommodation in at least some of them," he said.
Painter and Norman Eisen, who served as chief White House ethics lawyer for President Barack Obama, are involved in a lawsuit alleging that Trump's foreign business ties violate the U.S. Constitution. Trump has dismissed the lawsuit as "totally without merit."
In fact, spokespeople for Trump's business have claimed that as well, essentially stating that there is nothing to see here, it's business as usual, move along. But that doesn't square with history, nor how that history suddenly changed course to coincide with Trump becoming a political figure. Thirty-eight trademarks being approved in a matter of weeks when he couldn't get one approved for years. By a foreign government. Whatever your leanings, the question about whether this violates the Constitution certainly can't be called crazy any longer.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: china, donald trump, emoluments, trademark
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Trademark Usage
I think I know that trademarks need to be used in commerce in order to be valid, at least here in the US, which would applying for a 'defensive' mark questionable. But what about China? Two of those listed above stand out as marks that the President of the United States probably shouldn't be associated with.
The other question comes to mind, if they are not defensive, what is he going to use them for?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Trademark Usage
To register a trademark in the U.S., you either have to be using it in commerce or have a bona fide intent to use. In China, it is possible to register defensively, as stated in the article:
In other words, Trump may have no intention to use any of these marks. There is no way to know from the filings themselves.
Also, if you want to protect the English word and the Chinese characters that sound like the English word, you have to file registrations for both. Just ask Michael Jordan, who spent years gaining the rights to 乔丹 (Qiáodān, pronounced cheow-dahn).
Here, at least some of the trademarks are "duplicates"—the English spelling and the Chinese-character equivalent. For example, Trump registered both Trump Tower and 川普大厦 (Chuān pǔ dàshà, , loosely translated "Chuanpu" Building). Thus, it's likely that there are 19 "trademarks"—one for the English word and one for the Chinese "equivalent".
Not that this changes the substance of the argument, but I thought it might be helpful.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Trademark Usage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
( or is the evidence not all that conclusive? )
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
From how I read it they have stated their opinion, namely that China seems to be pretty bluntly attempting to curry favor with Trump, and that the whole thing is quite shady, all the more so because of how drastically different it is compared to what happened before.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Pardon me, scooter, but I did state my opinion clear as day in the original post on this topic, linked above: it's an emoluments violation and China is trying to generate favor with the president by granting him these favors.
This post was a rebuttal to what some said about the first post: it's just one trademark approved after, like, forever! That's not the case any longer, hence the post.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfounded Leaps
Tim, you quote Richard Painter as saying this isn't a violation of the emoluments clause:
It would seem that you agree with Painter, since you quote him and don't state otherwise. But you then conclude, "Whatever your leanings, the question about whether this violates the Constitution certainly can't be called crazy any longer."
If China granting the trademarks doesn't violate the emoluments clause, what clause are you saying it violates?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfounded Leaps
"A routine trademark, patent or copyright from a foreign government is likely not an unconstitutional emolument"
So, one trademark is routine, let it go.
"but with so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an accommodation in at least some of them,"
However, we aren't talking one, we're talking 38. That is where the emoluments clause may be being violated.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
Your deconstruction overlooks the fact that Painter switches from "emolument" in the first half of the sentence to "accommodation" in the second half. Painter doesn't say, "With so many trademarks being granted over such a short time period, the question arises as to whether there is an emolument."
Indeed, the Emoluments Clause wouldn't support that argument:
Emoluments are prohibited, whether they are provided quickly or repeatedly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
In this context an accommodation is synonymous with advantage and gain.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
The context doesn't support that either. What you are trying to say is that, in the first half he said "emolument", but in the second half, instead of just saying "emolument" again, he said "accommodations" which means "advantage" or "gain" which means "emolument".
Bear in mind that Painter has sued Trump over violations of the Emoluments Clause. It's not like he's afraid to say "emoluments" when he means "emoluments". The point is, Painter doesn't think this violates the Emoluments Clause. If he did, he would have been the first to tell you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfounded Leaps
If China granting the trademarks doesn't violate the emoluments clause, what clause are you saying it violates?
The basic smell test. This flunks... badly. It smacks of quid pro quo.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
Huh? The whole post is about the emoluments clause. Why are we discussing anything else?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
From the article, you quote Payne and Painter, neither of whom state this violates the Emoluments Clause, as discussed above in regards to Painter.
You don't quote Janet Satterthwaite, who said:
You claim that this violates the Emoluments Clause, but nobody in the article you cite makes that unequivocal statement. Have you found anyone who has?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
And I didn't include that Satterthwaite quote because whether or not what she says is true is ENTIRELY besides the point when it comes to the emoluments clause. Trump hasn't divorced himself from his business, and his business is currently getting trademarks approved with speed when he previously got denied at every turn. Whether those trademark apps are valid from a business perspective doesn't matter at all. All that matters is that China reversed course on the trademarks once Trump became a potential political figure. Now that he's President, I'm arguing this violates the emoluments clause, whether the trademark apps are appropriate or not....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Unfounded Leaps
Trump has 77 trademark registrations in China, so I'm not sure where you conclude "he previously got denied at every turn." As I understand it, there is one application that had been denied previously. These 38 appear to have followed a standard track: 11 months, from April 2016 to March 2017, appears wholly ordinary, and nowhere close to "stunning speed".
That's why Satterthwaite's quote is relevant. She sees nothing unusual. Painter disagrees. He sees an "accommodation". But neither of them see a violation of the Emoluments Clause.
The closest I've come to finding someone who unequivocally says that the granting of the stalled construction trademark application is a violation of the Emoluments Clause is Nancy Pelosi (note that the story is from last month, so she couldn't have been referring to the 38 trademarks granted this week):
Pelosi-knowing-it-when-she-sees-it isn't a reassuring legal standard.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
You're way BELOW "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" with this: you're only WISHING up a scandal.
I believe most people will roll their eyes that THIS is at all a Constitutional question -- and many will view it as a positive.
THIS is why I read Techdirt, though: it's like seeing the world from tumblebug level; they frantically roll their precious little balls of dung along and every tuft of grass is major obstacle.
While I have to deal with the human world where "GOOGLE SCHMIDT: Big data so powerful, nations will fight over it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
You're way BELOW "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" with this: you're only WISHING up a scandal.
I believe most people will roll their eyes that THIS is at all a Constitutional question -- and many will view it as a positive.
THIS is why I read Techdirt, though: it's like seeing the world from tumblebug level; they frantically roll their precious little balls of dung along and every tuft of grass is major obstacle.
While I have to deal with the human world where "GOOGLE SCHMIDT: Big data so powerful, nations will fight over it..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
You're way BELOW "conspiracy theorist" or "kook" with this: you're only WISHING up a scandal.
I agree 10,000 per cent! Absolutely sheer kookery! Just look at how many trademarks Obama got from China!!!
/sarc
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
How can anyone from either side of the aisle see that and not raise an eyebrow?
If it is indeed the Chinese government giving Trump special favors then it is clearly unconstitutional (yeah, that's in there).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
https://qz.com/595618/trump-is-caught-lying-about-his-china-tariff-proposal-and-it-would-hur t-his-supporters-the-most/
Asked if about his plan to raise a tariff on imported Chinese goods to 45%, reported by the New York Times, Trump said, “That’s wrong. They were wrong. It’s the New York Times, they are always wrong.”
He said earlier:
I would tax China coming in—products coming in. I would do a tariff. And they do it to us. We have to be smart. I’m a free trader. I’m a free trader. And some of the people would say, ‘Oh, it’s terrible.’ I’m a free trader. I love free trade. But it’s got to be reasonably fair. I would do a tax, and the tax—let me tell you what the tax should be. The tax should be 45 percent.
Seems the former is backtracking no?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Took a long time to make the rubber stamp pattern, now they're into mass production.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cultural differences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Cultural differences
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No title of nobility shall be granted by the United States: and no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Help control Trump?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]