that of other territories. The proposed changes are fundamental in nature; the very definition of a trademark is to be amended to incorporate a broad range of non-traditional marks, the requirement for use before registration is granted is to be removed and a classification system Jacques Labrunie On Friday morning Jacques Labrunie drew our attention away from the USA temporarily, to Brazil, the focus of considerable international attention with the world cup a recent memory, a forthcoming general election and the build up to the Olympics, in less than 2 years, underway. The supply of pharmaceutical products in Brazil is an important issue; it is a large and growing market with over half of the population regularly taking medications, which are expensive to the extent that price is inhibiting use. In common with the USA (and many other territories) there is conflict between the trade mark and regulatory authorities. Trade mark registration is only the first step in the regulatory process, taking 2-3 years before the trade mark is placed before the regulatory authority, ANVISA, where the proposed mark is examined on different grounds. A lack of harmonisation between the systems is so extreme that, for example, the cancellation of a trade mark registration may not be recognised by ANVISA. Again, it is difficult to make sense of such conflict in these circumstances. Negotiations are underway to change the regulatory landscape in Brazil, but there is perceptible frustration caused by the slow pace of change and genuine concerns that ANVISA has stepped back from a protection role, leaving the BPO to fill the void in protection, which is contrary to the position in almost all other territories. (see article on page 11). use trade marks as a form of free speech. It often feels as if the USA is in almost constant state of pre-election fever, and I became familiar with a number of campaign adverts during the conference which provided a very relevant backdrop to James Thomas' presentation, which began with an examination of political speech and artistic expression protected by the First Amendment. James then turned to the use of pharmaceutical trade marks as a form of 'commercial speech'. Currently trade mark applications are not subject to First Amendment analysis, primarily because the application process does not concern use of the mark. However the same cannot be said for cancellation cases which can raise constitutional issues. It will be introduced, which will also enable participation in the WIPO system. Whilst this is all positive the removal of the use requirements will create an environment welcoming to trade mark squatters and those trade mark owners who have relied upon unregistered rights are urged to formalise those rights before the introduction of the new provisions. Steven provided some practical guidance as to the kind of cases that may be more effectively prosecuted before the new laws are enacted, such as the formal protection of unregistered rights and applications claiming multiple class specifications. I am sure that many of us will look forward to updates at future PTMG meetings. Steven Garland Tom Farrand was a fascinating insight into considerations of which I had not previously been aware. Steven Garland brought us back to North America, with another highly topical matter, the long awaited changes to Canadian trade mark law, which should come into force at the end of 2015/2016. The proposed changes are intended to make it easier, faster and cheaper to obtain trade mark registration and to make the system more similar to James Thomas We moved very firmly back to the USA for the next presentation, an examination of US trade mark law and the First Amendment, focusing upon the right to 9 In contrast Tom Farrand's presentation on brand valuation concerns a matter at the very core of our profession throughout the world. Whilst formal brand valuation is undertaken by accountants and analysts wielding complicated formulas, the notion of a brand as a 'valuable' asset is one that we work hard every day to reinforce "What gets measured gets managed" indeed! Tom's comparison of intangible/tangible assets of pharma companies was striking, but perhaps more so was the comparison of the value of pharma brands to technology brands. Could there be any better cue to set out very practical advice concerning portfolio management and its direct impact upon brand value?