Friday, February 17, 2017

Ecns — Trump wins trademark case in China

Of interest for the political and legal implications in the US. We may be hearing more about this. From this report, it doesn't seem be an issue.
The registration signals the first trademark Trump has been granted in China during his presidency, following decade-long efforts to "wrest back" his name from a Chinese citizen named Dong Wei, the Associated Press reported on Tuesday.
Dong filed the trademark application in December 2006 for use in the decoration and repair of residential properties and hotels, which was two weeks earlier than that of Trump.
As a result, Chinese authorities turned down Trump's application due to the "first come, first serve" mechanism.... 
Zhou Dandan, a lawyer from the Beijing-based Unitalen Attorneys at Law who handled the case, said that the decision was based on Chinese trademark law. "Under the regulation, other individuals except the person himself are forbidden from registering the names of prominent political, economic, and religious figures," Zhou told the Global Times on Thursday.
Trump was little-known in China 10 years ago, and the trademark registered by Dong was not linked to the U.S. president at that time, she noted. But when Trump became president, "abundant evidence became available invalidating Dong's trademark," Zhou said.
Trump's right to use his name in construction services after many years of failure has sparked concerns in the U.S. over whether the ruling has broader political implications. 
Richard Painter, chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, was quoted by the Associated Press as saying that "any special treatment from China would mean that Trump effectively accepted a present from Beijing, an act that would violate the constitution."
Trump wins trademark case in China

Some agree with Painter.

Money Game
Trump has a shocking conflict of interest with China
Pedro Nicolaci da Costa


lastgreek said...

Was this before or after Trump agreed to back the "One China" policy?

Trump: I think the only difference between me and the other candidates is that I’m more honest and my women are more beautiful.

You know what they say -- you get what you pay for :)

Ryan Harris said...

What bothers me about this is that if it were the Clintons, I'd be furious if they gave paid speeches to Chinese 'for charity' where charity is defined as 85% going to family, friends and campaign support and 15% going to actual charity.

But we elected a billionaire with business interests all over the world, it's going to happen, I suppose. For people that hate him and are suspicious of him, it's going to burn them up and concern even his supporters at times.

A community organizer/college professor whose sole tangible asset was a mortgaged mansion in Chicago provides a stark comparison. Though when he traded it for a large US bond portfolio and then stopped the rhetoric about growing employment, it did make me wonder whether he wasn't intentionally maintaining high unemployment and slow growth to maintain the market value of the bonds until he got out of office.

With Trump, I don't know where the line has to be drawn exactly, or if can reasonably. I wouldn't want him to sell his real assets and hold government bonds. That has been a disastrous policy and created a massive conflict of interest ethically for the American people.

The upside, Trump has financial interests in maintaining good relations and peace, similar to how all Americans lose when government engages in policing the world. The down side, is we have to wonder how those financial interests could be used to extort the President into making adverse decisions.

When in business, people are always trying to sway with little trinkets, thoughtful deeds... meals and silly things that don't cost alot but might get more sales. It doesn't even make the slightest difference though. Take the gift and then buy from the guy who is five cents cheaper and tell them to lower their price and stop wasting money on salesmen and cheap tricks, that's the usual.

We've had government officials ask for cash, jobs and cars and things, suggest there should be quid pro quo. That concerns me, because they appear to think their one contract is worth far more than it is. In business, we spend a life making building it up, why would we risk everything for one contract to enrich some corrupt idiot? That's what I imagine Trump would think with regards to some trademark.

If the Chinese reserved a thousand hotel rooms for a year long stay from Trump hotels and that amounted to hundreds of million in revenue and even a few million in profit, that would concern me, and I would want him to do something different, that would be large enough. Or if they gave him a sweetheart subsidized hotel chain deal in every city in China, that would be bad. But a ruling on a trademark, about as corrupting as a big red reset button.

Tom Hickey said...

Look at our early presidents. They were wealthy people and they did not divest, even of slaves.