Trump’s China trademarks risk constitutional crisis

BEIJING: US President- elect Donald Trump has at least 45 trademark applications pending in China, AFP has learned, each of which could potentially violate the American constitution – underlining possible conflicts of interest in his relations with the Asian giant.

Since his election, Trump has angered Beijing by reaching out to Taiwan, appointing China sceptics and threatening punitive tariffs on the country’s exports.

But that has not stopped him from quietly working to secure the rights to his name in the world’s second largest economy, filing trademark applications as recently as June.

The businessman turned politician already holds at least 72 marks in China, part of an extensive, international portfolio that forms a central pillar of his enormous wealth.

He filed for an additional 42 in April, almost a year after declaring his presidential run, Chinese government data shows, and three more around two months later, having effectively clinched the Republican nomination.

All were filed in his own name and registered at his Trump Tower address in New York.

The approval process typically takes 12 to 18 months, so Chinese authorities will only make their decision long after he takes office later this month.

Experts from across the US political spectrum said the applications could put Trump on a collision course with the US constitution: article 1, section 9, clause 8 forbids federal officials from receiving a gift or ‘emolument’ – a salary, fee or profit – from a foreign government.

“Grants of trademarks, permits, etc could be deemed to be privileges bestowed by a foreign government that are covered by the clause,” said Robert Painter, a former White House ethicist for Republican president George W. Bush.

Barack Obama’s former ethics lawyer, Norman Eisen, agreed: “Each of these trademarks is a potential emolument.”

The “concern of the constitution is that flows of benefits to presidents from foreign sovereigns will distort their judgement, and trademarks are certainly capable of doing that”.

The constitution has no “specified remedy” for a breach, added Jay Wexler, a constitutional law scholar at Boston University. — AFP