Search the archive.

The USPTO is the agency tasked with administering the patent and trademark systems. It handles examination of patent and trademark applications, and provides certain administrative review proceedings that complement or act as alternatives to litigation (USPTO, 2015, 2017). One obvious concern is that, as an agency that derives its power from Congressional mandates, the USPTO is inherently susceptible to whatever political processes go on in Congress. If this were the whole story, USPTO policies would be expected to line up closely with the patent policy attitudes of the legislature. The reality is certainly more nuanced.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) amends the rules of practice in trademark cases to implement provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act of 2020 (TMA). This rule establishes ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings for cancellation of a registration when the required use in commerce of the registered mark has not been made; provides for a new nonuse ground for cancellation before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB or Board); establishes flexible Office action response periods; and amends the existing letter-of-protest rule to indicate that letter-of-protest determinations are final and non-reviewable. The rule also sets fees for petitions requesting institution of ex parte expungement and reexamination proceedings, and for requests to extend Office action response deadlines. The rules governing the suspension of USPTO proceedings and attorney recognition in trademark matters are also amended. Finally, a new rule is added to address procedures regarding court orders cancelling or affecting registrations.

What will happen with cannabis trademarks after federal legalization? This question comes up regularly, but unfortunately lacks a clear answer (or even an unclear answer). On the one hand, with cannabis no longer unlawful at the federal level, USPTO will be able to register trademarks for cannabis products. But beyond that, nothing is clear.

Whose use is it anyway?

Not so long ago the overwhelming majority of courts in democratic countries shared a reluctance to refer to foreign and international law. Their policy was to avoid any application of foreign sources of law that would clash with the position of their domestic governments. Many jurists find recourse to foreign and international law inappropriate. 1 But even the supporters of reference to external sources of law hold this unexplored assumption that reliance on foreign and international law inevitably comes into tension with the value of national sovereignty. Hence, the scholarly debate is famed along the lines of the well-known broader debate on "the countermajoritarian difficulty." 2 This article questions this assumption of tension. It argues that for courts in most democratic countries--even if not for U.S. courts at present--referring to foreign and international law has become an effective instrument for empowering the domestic democratic processes by shielding them from external economic, political, and even legal pressures. Citing international law therefore actually bolsters domestic democratic processes and reclaims national sovereignty from the diverse forces of globalization. Stated differently, most national courts, seeking to maintain the vitality of their national political institutions and to safeguard their own domestic status vis-a-vis the political branches, cannot afford to ignore foreign and international law

The Constitution reflects the Framers’ recognition, based on experience under the Articles of Confederation, that the power to enter and implement treaties must rest with the national government in order for the United States to be an effective sovereign on the international stage. Those same imperatives pertain today. The power to make treaties and the need to implement them are inherently intertwined. If Congress cannot fully implement a validly executed treaty, the United States may be unable to honor its international commitments. This would undercut the United States’ foreign policy priorities, diminish the President’s leverage to pressure nations to comply with their own obligations, and injure the United States’ credibility as a world leader—not to mention undermine the efficacy of the treaty itself.

International law itself is at a crossroads. The US, Russia, the EU, and NATO cite it when it is to their advantage and disregard it when they deem it a nuisance. Again, this is not to justify Russia’s unacceptable actions; rather, it is to add them to the sequence of actions contrary to international law.

The same problems may soon spill over into Asia. Until recently, China, Japan, and others in Asia have staunchly defended the requirement that the Security Council approve any outside military intervention in sovereign states. Recently, however, several countries in East Asia have become locked in a spiral of claims and counterclaims regarding borders, shipping lanes, and territorial rights. So far, these disputes have remained basically peaceful, but tensions are rising. We must hope that the countries of the region continue to see the great value of international law as a bulwark of sovereignty, and act accordingly.

The world is currently undergoing a remarkable revolution in science and technology that will seemingly allow us to engineer synthetic life of any imaginable variety, build swarms of robots so small that they are invisible to the human eye, and, perhaps, create an intelligence far superior to the collective brainpower of every human. Much of this “emerging technology” either already exists in rudimentary form or may be developed in the coming decades,1 including the three technologies covered by this paper: nanotechnology, bioengineering, and artificial intelligence (“AI”). While many scientists point to these developments as a panacea for disease, pollution, and even mortality,2 these emerging technologies also risk massive human death and environmental harm. Nanotechnology consists of “materials, devices, and systems” created at the scale of one to one hundred nanometers3—a nanometer being one billionth of a meter in size (10-9 m) or approximately one hundred-thousandth the width of a human hair4—including nano-sized machines (“nanorobots”). Bioengineering is the “engineering of living organisms” and can also operate on a tremendously small scale.5 Specific types of bioengineering include genetic engineering, or altering the genetic makeup of an organism’s cells,6 and synthetic biology, in which scientists develop “new biological parts, devices and systems that do not exist in the natural world and also the redesign of existing biological systems to perform specific tasks.”7 Finally, AI, meaning intelligent computers, is a pathway to “the Singularity,” the concept that manmade greater-than-human intelligence could improve upon its own design, thus beginning an intelligence feedback mechanism or “explosion” that would culminate in a godlike intelligence with the potential to operate at one million times the speed of the human brain.8 These and other threats from emerging technologies lmay pose a “global catastrophic risk” (“GCR”), which is a risk that could cause serious global damage to human well-being, or an “existential risk” (“ER”), which is a risk that could cause human extinction or the severe and permanent reduction of the quality of human life on Earth.9 Currently, the main risks from emerging technologies involve the accidental release or intentional misuse of bioengineered organisms, such as the airborne highly pathogenic avian influenza A (“H5N1”) virus, commonly known as “bird flu,” that scientists genetically engineered in 2011. However, with emerging technologies developing at a rapid pace, experts predict that perils such as dangerous self-replicating nanotechnology,10 deadly synthetic viruses available to amateur scientists, and unpredictable super-intelligent AI may materialize in the coming few decades.

Society should take great care to prevent a GCR or ER (“GCR/ER”) from materializing, yet GCRs/ERs arising out of nanotechnology, bioengineering, and AI are almost entirely unregulated at the international level.12 One possible way to mitigate the chances of a GCR/ER ever materializing is for the international community to establish an international convention tailored to emerging technologies based on the following three principles: first, that nanotechnology, bioengineering, and AI pose a GCR/ER; second, that existing international regulatory mechanisms either do not include emerging technologies within their scope or else insufficiently mitigate the risks arising from emerging technologies; and third, that a international convention based on the precautionary principle could reduce GCRs/ERs to an acceptable level. This paper purports to establish the threats of emerging technologies, highlight regulatory gaps under international law, and recommend an international framework to address the associated risks. Section II discusses the benefits and risks of emerging technologies, establishing that bioengineering poses a GCR/ER now while nanotechnology and AI pose a GCR/ER in the future. Section II also provides the background of attempts to enjoin the operation of the Large Hadron Collider (“LHC”) to highlight difficulties courts have in addressing low-probability scientific threats and the conflicts of interest scientists may have in self-regulation. Section III then analyzes GCRs/ERs from bioengineering under international law, concluding that no international convention sufficiently regulates the risks arising out of bioengineering. This section focuses on bioengineering because it is the only emerging technology that poses an immediate GCR/ER. Section IV stitches together the fundamentals of an international treaty that would regulate GCRs/ERs from emerging technologies through concepts such as the precautionary principle, decisionmaking from a body of experts, and public participation. Finally, Section V concludes that states should act quickly to create a flexible, legally binding treaty to regulate the emerging technologies that present a GCR/ER.

President Donald Trump’s unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the seven-nation agreement to halt Iranian nuclear production — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action, which his own country had largely designed — is a repudiation of traditional American diplomacy. But it also echoes an inauspicious American precedent. In leaving the Iran deal, the United States is replaying its rejection of the Treaty of Versailles — a move that ultimately led to the most devastating war in history.

The United States has been responsible for negotiating and enforcing some of the most enduring multinational diplomatic agreements of the 20th century, including the Washington Naval Treaty of 1922, the Bretton Woods Agreement of 1944, the United Nations Charter of 1945, the North Atlantic Treaty of 1949, and the Helsinki Final Act of 1975. Each of these agreements, hammered together by numerous countries with divergent interests, contributed to the peaceful, open international system that has benefited the United States and its allies by obliging all the parties to adhere to long-term commitments pertaining to their security. Each of these agreements would have been impossible without U.S. support and adherence. More than any other nation, the United States has been the author and enforcer of the liberal world order that makes capitalism and democracy, as we know them, possible.

Quantum physics and derivative technologies may transform the current global security environment bottom-up, working at the atomic level.

Nuclear weapons are devices that work in the other direction, top-down. They are the most powerful weapons controlled by humans; but they are so damaging and so imprecise as to be all but unusable in war except against enemies who have no ability to retaliate in a similar manner.

This article seeks to open a dialogue between the human rights and quantum science and technology (QST) communities. The aim is to foster collaboration between them to help ensure that quantum technologies will respect and promote human rights. The article will provide a brief overview of human rights before exploring some of the potential human rights impacts of the three ‘most exciting’ quantum technologies, namely, sensing, computing, and communications [1]. It will then draw some lessons from recent experiences in managing the human rights impacts of internet-based technologies and apply them to emerging quantum technologies. The critical point that will emerge is that both communities need to start working together to evaluate quantum technologies’ potential human rights impacts and determine whether we can build human rights safeguards into them.

2. An introduction to human rights

While we can point to cases where the prohibition on war has not been observed — and the United States has been both one of the greatest defenders and one of the greatest offenders in the last several decades — it’s a mistake to suggest that the legal principles are meaningless or ineffective. The modern legal order is grounded in the prohibition on war, even if it is not always perfectly observed.

I said earlier that the test of a legal principle is not just whether it is violated, but what response meets that violation. And here we have seen a response much more robust than many expected when this war began. Normally moribund international legal institutions have suddenly sprung to life in response to the illegal invasion. Here, I will detail international community responses of four kinds: condemnation, outcasting, arming, and accountability.

Some observers perceive that after remaining generally stable for a period of more than 70 years (i.e., since the end of World War II in 1945), the U.S. role in the world under the Trump Administration has undergone a substantial change. A change in the U.S. role in the world could have significant and even profound effects on U.S. security, freedom, and prosperity. It could significantly affect U.S. policy in areas such as relations with allies and other countries, defense plans and programs, trade and international finance, foreign assistance, and human rights.

The issue for Congress is whether the U.S. role in the world has changed, and if so, what implications this might have for the United States and the world. Congress’s decisions regarding the U.S. role in the world could have significant implications for numerous policies, plans, programs, and budgets, and for the role of Congress relative to that of the executive branch in U.S. foreign policymaking.

As students are first exposed to international legal materials there may be a degree of skepticism about the importance of international law. Some may believe that international law is merely illusionary since governments seem to comply with it only out of convenience and disregard it whenever a contrary interest appears. Others may suspect that international law cannot really be law since there is no effective world legislature, judiciary, or police force to enforce it.

In fact, government compliance with international law is the norm and noncompliance is the very rare exception. There are over 45,000 international treaties, which fill 1,800 thick volumes — usually located in some obscure place in a law school library.1 Fortunately, they are also available electronically via CD-Rom, Lexis, Westlaw, and various sites on the Internet. Treaties govern every aspect of international relations and commerce, including air travel, telephone communications, television broadcasting, mail delivery, weather reporting, private contracts, protection of the environment, human rights, and trade with foreign countries. Breaches are infrequent and not without significant costs as discussed below.

For the United Nations (UN) system, the rule of law is a principle of governance in which all persons, institutions and entities, public and private, including the State itself, are accountable to laws that are publicly promulgated, equally enforced and independently adjudicated, and which are consistent with international human rights norms and standards. It requires measures to ensure adherence to the principles of supremacy of the law, equality before the law, accountability to the law, fairness in the application of the law, separation of powers, participation in decision-making, legal certainty, avoidance of arbitrariness, and procedural and legal transparency.

The rule of law is fundamental to international peace and security and political stability; to achieve economic and social progress and development; and to protect people’s rights and fundamental freedoms. It is foundational to people’s access to public services, curbing corruption, restraining the abuse of power, and to establishing the social contract between people and the state. Rule of law and development are strongly interlinked, and strengthened rule of law-based society should be considered as an outcome of the 2030 Agenda and Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs).

Exactly how the consequences of marijuana legalization will play out on the international stage is a live issue that ultimately remains to be seen. 2 26 Although some nations are proving sympathetic to marijuana legalization as a matter of policy preference, 227 the issue of treaty breach continues to linger.2 28 Certain world leaders, notably those in Russia and Asia, remain staunch supporters of strict marijuana prohibition. 229 The European Union, while recognizing allowance for certain non-criminal justice approaches to marijuana use, has stated that licensing and regulating recreational industries exceeds treaty flexibility.23 0 So long as there are nations of the world who view marijuana legalization within the United States as violating the drug treaties, then the United States risks certain reputational, reciprocal, and institutional consequences-not unlike those, it might be mentioned, that it has faced elsewhere in its history.231

– Begin Footnote 229 –

The administration claims its course complies with the treaties. You say you know of no precedent for its claim. What’s so unusual about the administration’s approach?

Here you don’t have the sort of situation the United States has faced in the past, where there was some kind of external factor that made treaty compliance difficult for the executive branch. The administration is choosing to accommodate what Washington and Colorado are doing with marijuana, provided they do it in a rigorous way. What the administration is doing is waiting to see how marijuana legalization is going to turn out, something that could butt up against the limits of enforcement discretion.

Under the United Nations 1961 Single Convention on Narcotic Drugs, signatories agreed to exclusively allow medical and scientific uses of the listed drugs, including marijuana.[2] This includes the production, export, import, distribution of, trade in, and possession of marijuana.[3] This Convention also created the International Narcotics Control Board, a quasi-judicial body which is responsible for monitoring and supporting signatory countries’ compliance with the international drug treaties.[4] Under the plain language of the convention, federal legalization of adult use marijuana would violate this commitment, and the International Narcotics Control Board has already voiced their disapproval of the U.S. federal government’s decision to allow the states to legalize adult use.[5]

International law certainly influences national and local laws through good faith compliance, but the bigger and more applicable question here is whether international law can influence a national government enough to refuse their citizens popular policy changes. This is entirely dependent upon the consequences the country would face if they were to violate the international law.

Significantly, these two narratives of historical development of international law are not mutually exclusive. First, certain developments can be understood as clean breaks from the past, whereas others are the product of a long-term process. Second, identifying historical trajectories depends on the focal length of the historical lenses used: What is viewed as a major shift in direction at the time in which events take place, might be regarded decades or centuries later as a minor course correction, a short period of instability, or a mere point on a pattern showing the overall trajectory. And third, the two narratives may merge to generate processes of change, accelerating in particular moments in time due to ‘tipping points’ generated by certain dramatic events.5 Indeed, it would appear that certain important developments in international law can be described as part of long-running trends punctured by sudden fluctuations correlating to dramatic events. For example, the evolution of IHL norms governing non-international armed conflicts can be narrated as stemming from a gradual process of restraining violence in and around the battlefield that started picking up momentum in the mid- 19th century, with certain regulatory peaks occurring after and in connection with major international crises such as World War Two, Vietnam and the Global War on Terror (e.g., Common article 3 in 1949, the 1977 Additional Protocols, and the development of laws governing transnational or asymmetric armed conflicts in the 2000s).

The COVID-19 Pandemic as the Harbinger of a Constitutional Moment

When the time comes, the US federal government will need to determine how to handle the INCB and their clear disapproval for adult use marijuana legalization. Assuming that American policy will eventually turn in favor of adult use regulation, the U.S. has two clear options: 1) knowingly violate international law or 2) attempt to lead the charge in amending the Convention. Violating international law may not have serious consequences from the INCB or fellow nations who are also looking to legalize marijuana for adult use, but it does set a precedent which could be negatively impactful in the future. The United States has a unique role on the international stage, and with this influence comes a level of responsibility. If the United States disregards commitments it has previously made, then that has the potential to not only undermine the international influence the U.S. has accumulated, but it also has the potential to encourage other nations to do the same. The U.S. has an interest in maintaining the credibility of international law, and such blatant disregard for an international convention could negatively impact this interest.

The United Nations’s (UN) drug control body is reiterating that it considers legalizing marijuana for non-medical or non-scientific purposes a violation of international treaties, though it also said it appreciates that Germany’s government scaled back its cannabis plan ahead of a recent vote. The global narcotics agency is also taking note of the psychedelics policy reform movement in U.S. states.

This is mostly par for the course for the International Narcotics Control Board (INCB), which has routinely criticized countries for allowing the enactment of cannabis legalization due to their obligations under various Single Convention treaties going back to 1961. But as Germany entered the fold, and the U.S. has continued to move toward marijuana and psychedelics reform, the body is again making its disappointment known.