Related Topics:
property
ownership

branding, the permanent marking of livestock or goods using a distinctive design made by hot or superchilled metal, chemical, tattoo, or paint for purposes of identification. In agricultural usage it may also include tagging and notching. Brands are applied to animals principally to establish ownership, but they are also used widely for keeping records of purebred lines and for identification in disease control and age differentiation. Professional animal breeders sometimes adopt brands as trademarks to indicate high standards of quality. Branding is also a key component of product and organizational advertising

Historical evidence indicates that hot-iron branding of livestock was practised in Egypt as early as 2000 bce. In the 16th century Hernán Cortés introduced branding to North America, using three Christian crosses to mark his cattle and horses. As ranching spread across the open ranges, brands to show ownership developed into a heraldry as colourful as the armorial bearings of knighthood. Branding of beef cattle and horses continued in general use in parts of North and South America and Australia. To prevent duplication of brands and to give legal protection to livestock owners, national and state governments passed brands acts requiring registration of all brands and making it an offense to alter registered brands.

In the range country of the western United States, laws require branding of cattle that graze on public lands, and in some states it is illegal to slaughter unbranded animals. As hides became more valuable, laws were changed to permit stockowners to apply smaller brands to less valuable parts of the hide, such as jaw, neck, or legs. In the mid-20th century scientists discovered a painless method of branding livestock with intense cold which brings about a growth of white hair and depigmentation where the superchilled metal is applied. Introduction of tranquilizer drugs made it possible to replace older methods of immobilizing large animals before applying marks and brands.

Development of permanent tattoo inks led to increased use of this method of branding. Dairy cattle are commonly branded with tattoo hand pincers, the application usually being inside the ear. Horses are sometimes tattoo branded in the upper or lower lip with clamp devices. Poultry and fur-bearing animals are also branded with tattoo marks. Swine breeders identify their animals with ear markings and notchings, a method occasionally applied to cattle, goats, and sheep. Sheep most usually, however, are branded on the back with paint or lanolin-based dyes that adhere to the wool and are resistant to sun, air, and moisture, but are dissolvable in the wool-scouring process used in commercial plants. The use of implantable microchip transponders to track and identify animals became increasingly popular in the 21st century, but many commercial livestock operators continued to use branding for its comparatively low cost, its permanence, and its prominent and traditional role in ranching culture.

In lumbering areas where logs are transported mainly by floating down rivers to sawmills, identification marks are applied to logs with branding axes. In the 19th century American loggers devised thousands of ingenious brands, many of them reflecting the lusty humour of the woodsmen. Sorters in the collecting booms were able to determine ownership by brands and thus route logs to the proper mills. Each end of a log was marked, and in areas where organized thieves "rustled" river timber by cutting off the ends, owners adopted the practice of stamping brands into the middle of the log for additional protection.

The ancient Greeks branded their slaves with a delta (Δ), for doulos (“slave”). Robbers and runaway slaves were marked by the Romans with the letter “F” (fur, “thief”; fugitivus, “fugitive”); and the toilers in the mines and convicts condemned to figure in gladiatorial shows were branded on the forehead for identification. Under Constantine the face was not permitted to be so disfigured, so brands were placed on the hand, arm, or calf. Canon law sanctioned the punishment, and in France galley slaves could be branded “TF” (travaux forcés, “hard labour”) until 1832. In Germany branding was illegal.

The punishment was adopted by the Anglo-Saxons, and the ancient law of England authorized the penalty. By the Statute of Vagabonds (1547), vagabonds, Roma (Gypsies), and brawlers were to be branded, the first two with a large “V” on the breast, the last with “F” for “fray maker.” Slaves who ran away were branded with “S” on the cheek or forehead. This law was repealed in 1636. In the 18th century coinage offenses were punished by branding the right cheek with the letter “R” for “rogue.” From the time of Henry VII (reigned 1485–1509), branding was inflicted for all offenses which received benefit of clergy, but it was abolished for such in 1822. Beginning in 1698 it was decreed that those convicted of petty theft or larceny, who were entitled to benefit of clergy, should be "burnt in the most visible part of the left cheek, nearest the nose." This special ordinance was repealed in 1707. Perhaps the most notable instance of human branding in British history is the case of James Nayler. In 1656 Nayler, an early Quaker, was branded on the forehead with the letter “B” for “blasphemy” for having imitated Christ’s entry into Jerusalem.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.

Cold branding or branding with cold irons became in the 18th century the mode of nominally inflicting the punishment on prisoners of higher rank. Such cases led to branding becoming obsolete, and it was abolished in 1829 except for deserters from the army. These were marked with the letter "D" by tattooing with ink or gunpowder. Notoriously bad soldiers were also branded with "BC" ("bad character"). By the British Mutiny Act of 1858 it was enacted that the court-martial, in addition to any other penalty, might order deserters to be marked on the left side, two inches below the armpit, with the letter "D," such letter to be not less than one inch long. In 1879 this was abolished.

In the American colonies the branding of petty criminals was fairly common but was abolished before the American Revolution. The use of branding to identify slaves in the ante bellum United States was widespread, however, and it was often employed to punish slaves who had attempted to escape. Frederick Douglass described this process in chilling detail, stating that the slave would be tied to a post and stripped, and that a hot iron would be “applied to the quivering flesh, imprinting upon it the name of the monster who claimed the slave.” In at least one case, a white Abolitionist who had attempted to help slaves escape was branded on the hand with the letters “SS” for “slave stealer.”

This article was most recently revised and updated by Michael Ray.
Key People:
Paul Romer
Related Topics:
property law
copyright
copyleft

intellectual-property law, the legal regulations governing an individual’s or an organization’s right to control the use or dissemination of ideas or information. Various systems of legal rules exist that empower persons and organizations to exercise such control. Copyright law confers upon the creators of “original forms of expression” (e.g., books, movies, musical compositions, and works of art) exclusive rights to reproduce, adapt, and publicly perform their creations. Patent law enables the inventors of new products and processes to prevent others from making, using, or selling their inventions. Trademark law empowers the sellers of goods and services to apply distinctive words or symbols to their products and to prevent their competitors from using the same or confusingly similar insignia or phrasing. Finally, trade-secret law prohibits rival companies from making use of wrongfully obtained confidential commercially valuable information (e.g., soft-drink formulas or secret marketing strategies).

The emergence of intellectual-property law

Until the middle of the 20th century, copyright, patent, trademark, and trade-secret law commonly were understood to be analogous but distinct. In most countries they were governed by different statutes and administered by disparate institutions, and few controversies involved more than one of these fields. It also was believed that each field advanced different social and economic goals. During the second half of the 20th century, however, the lines between these fields became blurred. Increasingly they were considered to be closely related, and eventually they became known collectively as “intellectual-property law.” Perceptions changed partly as a result of the fields’ seemingly inexorable growth, which frequently caused them to overlap in practice. In the 1970s, for example, copyright law was extended to provide protection to computer software. Later, during the 1980s and ’90s, courts in many countries ruled that software could also be protected through patent law. The result was that the developers of software programs could rely upon either or both fields of law to prevent consumers from copying programs and rivals from selling identical or closely similar programs.

Copyright, patent, trademark, and trade-secret law also have overlapped dramatically in the area of so-called “industrial design,” which involves the creation of objects that are intended to be both useful and aesthetically pleasing. Contemporary culture is replete with examples of such objects—e.g., eyeglass frames, lamps, doorknobs, telephones, kitchen appliances, and automobile bodies. In many countries the work of the creators of these objects is protected by at least three systems of rules: copyright protection for “useful objects” (a variant of ordinary copyright law); design-patent law (a variant of ordinary patent law); and “trade-dress” doctrine (a variant of trademark law). These rules stop short of protecting “functional” features, which are understood to include the shapes of objects when those shapes are determined by the objects’ practical uses. Nevertheless, the rules combine to create strong impediments to the imitation of nonfunctional design features.

The integration of copyright, patent, trademark, and trade-secret law into an increasingly consolidated body of intellectual-property law was reinforced by the emergence in many jurisdictions of additional types of legal protection for ideas and information. One such protection is the “right of publicity,” which was invented by courts in the United States to enable celebrities to prevent others from making commercial use of their images and identities. Similarly, the European Union has extended extensive protections to the creators of electronic databases. Computer chips, the shapes of boat hulls, and folklore also have been covered by intellectual-property protections.

Internet domain names

In the 1990s the exclusive right to use Internet domain names—unique sequences of letters (divided, by convention, into segments separated by periods) that correspond to the numerical Internet Protocol (IP) addresses that identify each of the millions of computers connected to the Internet—became a highly contested issue. Domain-name labels enable “packets” of information transmitted over the Internet to be delivered to their intended destinations. The mnemonic character of domain names (e.g., http://www.britannica.com) also assists consumers in locating Internet-based businesses. As commercial activity on the Internet grew, evocative domain names became increasingly valuable, and struggles over them multiplied, especially as a result of the activities of so-called “cybersquatters,” who registered popular domain names with the aim of selling them to businesses at huge profits. The task of allocating domain names throughout the world and of resolving disputes over them has been largely assumed by a private organization, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). With the assistance of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), ICANN promulgated a Uniform-Domain-Name-Dispute-Resolution Policy to resolve domain-name controversies and has licensed several arbitration services to interpret and enforce it. In 1999 the United States established a similar national system, known as the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, which is administered by the federal courts. Under the law, individuals can be fined up to $100,000 for registering a domain name in “bad faith.” Defenders of the law contended that it was crucial to protect the commercial value of trademarks and to shield businesses from extortion. Critics argued that the legislation was too broad and could be used by companies to suppress consumer complaints, parody, and other forms of free speech.

The World Trade Organization and intellectual-property law

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (commonly known as TRIPS) has contributed greatly to the expansion of intellectual-property law. Negotiated as part of the Uruguay Round (1986–94) of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the TRIPS Agreement obligates members of the World Trade Organization (WTO) to establish and enforce minimum levels of copyright, patent, and trademark protection within their jurisdictions. Countries that fail to do so are subject to various WTO-administered trade sanctions.

The leaders of some developing countries contend that the TRIPS Agreement reflects and perpetuates a form of Western imperialism. Noting that most owners of intellectual property (e.g., the copyrights on popular movies and music, the patents on pharmaceutical products, and the trademarks of multinational food and clothing companies) reside in developed countries, these officials argue that strengthening intellectual-property rights unfairly raises the prices paid by consumers in the developing world. Accordingly, developing countries generally have been slow to implement TRIPS. Some economists, however, maintain that the long-term effect of the agreement will be to benefit developing countries by stimulating local innovation and encouraging foreign investment. Despite the existence of TRIPS, global rates of piracy of software, music, movies, and electronic games remain high, in part because many countries in Africa and Latin America have not met the deadlines imposed by the agreement for revamping their intellectual-property laws. Other countries, particularly in Asia, have formally complied with the agreement by passing new laws but have not effectively enforced them.

Are you a student?
Get a special academic rate on Britannica Premium.