Trump’s trademarks

Selling, first and foremost, would not eliminate possibilities of
conflicts of interest. In fact, it would exacerbate them. The Trump brand is
key to the value of the Trump Organization’s assets. If President-elect Trump
sold his brand, he would be entitled to royalties for the use of it, and this
would result in the trust retaining an interest in the brand without the
ability to assure that it does not exploit the office of the presidency.
First, there is
absolutely no requirement that any transaction divesting Trump of the Trump trademarks
must have royalties attached.  Lump sums—that
is, outright sales—are perfectly acceptable methods of carrying out such
transactions.  Fixed license fees with no
relationship to sales are also possible. 
The lawyer’s claim is a misstatement of the law, and one that should not
have been made by anyone with even minimal trademark transaction
experience.  I take it that in essence
this statement is meant to be coupled with the later, and contestable in its
own right, claim that President-Elect Trump shouldn’t have to (comply with the
Constitution if that would mean he’d) suffer financially from being President,
plus the implicit assertion that lump sums or fixed fees would be less financially
attractive than royalties.  But “we think
he couldn’t make as much money from a true sale” is not the same as “a sale
would entitle him to royalties” and thus
continue his financial interest in the brand no matter what. 
Second, to the
extent that Trump is in fact (if you believe he is) isolated from information
about and management of the brands, he has a bigger trademark problem: that
would mean abandoning the mark.  If he is
to be the owner, he needs to control the quality of the products and services sold
via that mark.  If all he promises to do
is step back so that he’s not involved in any decisions but just reaps the
rewards, he’s just engaging in naked licensing, which in the US results in the
abandonment of the mark.  So this
“explanation” is flat wrong at best, backwards at worst.  [I wonder what would happen if someone brought
a cancellation petition after he takes office. 
I suppose one could claim that the non-blind trust is the legal owner,
and is making management decisions, which just happen to inure to his benefit.  At last look, he was personally the owner of
record of a bunch of the Trump registrations according to TSDR; I wonder
if/when that will change.  But the real
point is: without true divestment, no trust arrangement can keep him from
having a financial interest in the Trump marks and businesses and thus from
being vulnerable to influence in his official duties.]

Now, that doesn’t
mean that these misstatements will ever have any
consequences for the President-Elect
, any more than other, more significant ones have done.  But let’s make a record anyway.

from Blogger

This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s