No link and turn. The plan doesn’t affect broad treaty obligations and recommits to TRIPs standards.

Currently, the law regarding the production, sale, and use of recreational marijuana is in a state of tension. Despite a general prohibition under both United States federal law and international conventions, some nations and some states within the United States have begun to legalize marijuana for recreational use. The federal government refuses to extend trademark protections to businesses engaging in production or sale of marijuana against federal law even if these businesses are in full compliance with local state laws. The states, [*289] however, provide at least some level of protection for marijuana businesses under state law and common provisions for trademark protection. Because the authority to grant and protect these trademarks lies in state hands, it is theoretically possible that a state government could show favoritism to local applicants over foreign citizens in potential violation of the United States' treaty obligations under the TRIPS agreement. However, states and nations that have legalized marijuana use have cautiously crafted their laws to avoid a cross-border market. This indicates that a dispute of marijuana-related intellectual property is unlikely to grow beyond a single jurisdiction. Furthermore, because dispute settlement under TRIPS requires a state party to bring a complaint and because state parties have so far remained cautious to avoid international entanglements involving their marijuana laws, it is extremely unlikely that any state party would seek TRIPS arbitration. Inconsistent marijuana laws between state and federal governments arguably create tensions between state laws and the United States' treaty obligations. However, due to the practical realities of legalized marijuana within and outside of the United States, it is unlikely that a dispute would arise at this time.