There is no doubt that trademarks are not limited to regulating their protection on national legislation only, but their protection has become a fundamental requirement in the international arena, since these marks move from one country to another and from it to others according to the branches of activities in which these marks are used, and the international community has concluded a number of international agreements regulating the work of trademarks and organizing their protection, and perhaps the most important of these international agreements; Paris, Thrips, this In addition to the Madrid Agreement, In the context of detailing the talk about the position of these agreements on the approval of trademark protection, the main problem we have was whether these advanced agreements have achieved the protection already desired or not, and the question about the nature of these agreements and whether they are legitimate or not, and whether they suffered from deficiencies in regulation or not, and within the framework of the implementation of the analytical rooting approach we reached a number of results and recommendations, and the most important of these results is that the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property came devoid of a statement Cases in which trademarks are considered contrary to public order, in addition to being devoid of rules governing the registration of these marks, and this is what the member states of the Convention had to address and amend.