The United States use-based system is unique to international trademark law. Other major systems—the European Union, the People's Republic of China, and Japan—determine trademark rights based on a "first-to-file" system. Fred Rocafort, International Trademark FAQs, Harris Sliwolski: China L. Blog (Mar. 10, 2025). Under a first-to-file system, trademarks are acquired by government registration as opposed to use. The first party to complete registration is said to be the owner of the trademark, regardless of if another party is using the mark. Id. 

America is required to honor these first-to-file systems in accordance with the country's coperation with the Paris Convention and Madrid Protocol. To remain compliant, the United States provides certain benefits to foreign parties seeking to register their marks in the United States. Under 15 U.S.C. § 1126 (implementing the Paris Convention), priority trademark registration is provided to foreign parties whose mark is registered in the foreign home country. See 15 U.S.C. § 1126(e). Parties seeking registration through the United State's implementation of the Paris Convention are required to state their "bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce," but are not required to use the mark in commerce prior to registration. Id. The Madrid Protocol implements many of the same requirements, including granting an application on a bona fide intention to use the mark in commerce. 15 U.S.C. § 1141.

The implementation of the Paris Convention and the Madrid Agreement may due more to distance the United States trademark system from its international counterparts. Federal registration may be granted under the Lanham Act provisions implementing the two treaties, however, international registrants usually cannot protect the rights granted from registration. These registrants lack Article III standing to enforce their American trademark rights because American trademark rights flow from use, not the filing registration. See Broklyn Brewery Corp. v. Brooklyn Brew Shop, 17 F.4th 129, 138–39 (noting the requirement of Article III standing in a trademark suit). The cases and annotations below provide an in-depth starting point to answer the question of how the United States trademark system can be placed in international accord without losing the common law nature of the nation's trademark jurisprudence. 

CASES DISCUSSING STANDING

1. Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. 572 U.S. 118 (2014). 
2. Zazu Designs v. L'Oreal, S.A., 979 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1992). 
3. Menaxi Enters., Inc. v. Coca-Cola Co., 38 F.4th 1067 (Fed. Cir. 2022)/
4. Belmora LLC v. Bayer Consumer Care AG, 819 F.3d 697 (4th Cir. 2016).
5. Int'l Bancorp, LLC v. Societe des Bains de Mert et du Cercle des Estrangers a Monaco, 329 F.3d 359 (4th Cir. 2003). 
6. Persons Co., Ltd. v. Christman, 900 F.2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1990). 
7. Buti v. Perosa, S.R.L., 193 F.3d 98 45 (2d Cir. 1998).

CASES DISCUSSING REGISTRATION OF INTERNATIONAL MARKS

1. In re De Luxe N.V., 990 F.2d 607 (Fed. Cir. 1993).
2. In re Cyber-Blitz Trading Servs., 47 U.S.P.Q.2d (Comm'r Pat. & Trademarks 1998). 
3. In re Int'l Barruer Corp., 231 U.S.P.Q. 310 (T.T.A.B. 1986). 
4. In re Rath, 402 F.3d 1207 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 

ANNOTATIONS

1. Andrew Vincze, Annotation, World Trade Organization (WTO) Dispute Settlement Under WTO Intrustments Applicable to Goods, Services, and Intellectual Property, 8 A.L.R. Int'l 1 (2014) (West)
2. Deborah F. Buckman et al., Annotation, Internet Trademark Infringement and Passing Off—Non-United States Cases, 3 A.L.R. Int'l 459 (2010)  (West) 
3. M.B., Sale under foreign trademark of product of foreign manufacturer as infringemnet of same trademark for same product registered in United States, 26 A.L.R. 570 (1923) (West).