The awards issued in foreign investment disputes have thus far paid less attention to the subjectof trademarks within the framework of intellectualpropertyrights and its relationship with foreign investment.Consequently,the Bridgestone.v.Panama case is a pivotal point that enables the examination of trademark protection in international investment law.This research investigates the challenges arising from the mere registration of trademarks versus the requirement for genuine commercial activity.It emphasizes the issue of conflict between protecting foreign investors and the host state'sright to regulation.Furthermore,it addresses the conditions under which a subsidiary company licensed to use trademarks may benefit from a treaty, the issue of claiming denial of justice, and its conditions in light of investment protection.The findings of the research,obtained through the library-based information gathering method,document study,and logical analysis,indicate that the recognition of trademarks as an investment requires meeting the minimum criteria of the well-knownSalini test and is notachieved merely through trademark registration and granting licenses for their use.Consequently,this proposition will determine the inclusion or exclusion of treaty protections.Additionally, the research confirms the importance of treaty interpretation, the significant role of arbitration in resolving disputes concerning intellectualpropertyrights, and the establishment of a balance between protecting investors'rights and preserving national sovereignty in the investment law system.