For several years, the accession by the United States to the Protocol has been anticipated. However, primarily due to a dispute with the European Union over voting rights under the Protocol, efforts to accede stalled. This dispute was finally, if belatedly, resolved in February 2000.

Legislation to implement the Protocol was drawn up by the U.S. State Department for approval by the White House and in September 2000, and President Clinton also sent the Protocol ratification-related documents to the U.S. Senate for its advice and consent. In November 2001, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee unanimously approved a resolution recommending that the Senate give its advice and consent to the United States' accession to the Madrid Protocol. However, the full Senate has yet to vote on the ratification documents and the matter has not yet been put on the Senate's calendar as of the date of this writing. Similarly, the legislation to implement the Madrid Protocol (H.R. 741) was passed by the U.S. House of Representatives in March 2001 and an identical bill (S. 407) was approved in July 2001 by the Senate Judiciary Committee. These bills are also still pending and awaiting to be voted upon by the full Senate. The implementing legislation does not change substantive law, but rather introduces procedural mechanisms to accommodate the filing, examination, acceptance, maintenance and cancellation of International registrations under the Protocol. Upon enactment of the implementing legislation, President Bush will have a year to deposit formally the instrument of ratification with the WIPO. This will allow the USPTO time to adjust its procedures accordingly.

To those not familiar with law and practice associated with international filing programs and/or trademark treaties, the concurrent existence of the Agreement and the Protocol, along with national registration procedures and the Community Trademark, can be confusing and intimidating. With the proliferation of intellectual property treaties, the practitioner will need to be cognizant of which marks are purely national, Agreement, Protocol or Community registrations, as the rights and obligations connected, for example, with clearing, filing, renewal, cancellation and transfer recordal of marks/applications/registrations do vary. There are also significant economic consequences of the choices that must be evaluated.

Thus, while the Madrid Protocol appears, in this era of internationalization, harmonization and global practice, to be worth utilizing, navigating the road ahead still requires specialized experience and careful guidance.