10070 Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices

1The record is defined in § 207.2(f) of the

Commission’s rules of practice and procedure (19

CFR 207.2(f)).

2Chairman Miller dissenting.

3The imported products subject to this

investigation, as defined by the U.S. Department of

Commerce, are beryllium metal and high-beryllium

alloys with a beryllium content equal to or greater

than 30 percent by weight, whether in ingot, billet,

powder, block, lump, chunk, blank, or other

semifinished form. These are intermediate or

semifinished products that require further

machining, casting, and/or fabricating into sheet,

extrusions, forgings, or other shapes in order to

meet the specifications of the end user. Beryllium

metal and high-beryllium alloys in which beryllium

predominates over all other metals are provided for

in subheadings 8112.11.30 and 8112.11.60 of the

Harmonized Tariff Schedules of the United States

respondent Tom Yarbrough Equipment

Rental and Sales, Inc.

On August 21, 1996, the Commission

determined not to review an initial

determination (ID) (Order No. 40)

granting complainants’ motion for

summary determination that

complainants’ four trademarks are valid

and that the ‘‘KUBOTA’’ (block letters)

and Gear Design marks are

incontestable. On September 6, 1996,

the Commission determined not to

review an ID (Order No. 47) granting

complainants’ motion for summary

determination that a domestic industry

exists with respect to the ‘‘KUBOTA’’

(block letters) and ‘‘KUBOTA’’ (stylized)

trademarks.

The presiding administrative law

judge (ALJ) held an evidentiary hearing

on the merits between August 29 and

September 7, 1996, and heard closing

arguments on October 24, 1996. The ALJ

issued his final ID finding a violation of

section 337 on November 22, 1996. He

found that there had been imports of the

accused products; that 24 specific

models of the accused tractors infringed

the ‘‘KUBOTA’’ (block letters)

trademark (U.S. Reg. No. 922,330); that

one model of the accused tractors, the

KBT L200, did not infringe the

‘‘KUBOTA’’ (block letters) trademark;

that none of the 25 accused KBT models

considered infringed the ‘‘KUBOTA’’

(stylized) trademark (U.S. Reg. No.

1,775,620); and that complainants were

no longer asserting violations of section

337 based on infringement of the

stylized ‘‘K’’ and ‘‘Gear Design’’

trademarks.

On January 9, 1997, the Commission

determined to review (1) the finding of

no infringement and no violation with

respect to the KBT model L200 tractor;

and (2) the decision to limit

infringement analysis to 25 models of

accused tractors rather than all models

of KBT tractors as to which there is

evidence of importation and sale in the

United States.

The Commission determined not to

review the ID in all other respects. On

review, the Commission requested that

the parties address the following issues:

(1) Whether the fact that gray market KBT

model L200 tractors are imported and sold

bearing Japanese-language labels constitutes

a ‘‘material difference’’ from the authorized

KTC model L200 tractors sufficient to

establish a likelihood of consumer confusion;

(2) Whether evidence on the record in this

investigation demonstrates that specific KBT

models other than the 25 identified on (Staff

Exhibit) SX–1 have been imported and sold

in the United States; and, if so,

(3) Whether evidence on the record in this

investigation demonstrates that any specific

KBT model identified in number (2) above

was imported and sold in the United States

bearing Japanese-language labels or is

otherwise materially different than the

closest corresponding KTC model with

respect to any of the differences found to be

‘‘material’’ in the ID.

In addition, the Commission requested

written submissions on the issues of

remedy, the public interest, and

bonding. 62 FR 2179 (Jan. 15, 1997).

Submissions and reply submissions

on remedy, the public interest, and

bonding and on the issues under review

were received from complainants,

respondents, and the Commission

investigative attorney (IA). In addition,

complainants filed a request for oral

hearing pursuant to Commission rule

210.45, complainants filed a request to

strike pages 4–20 of respondents’’ brief

on review, respondents filed a request to

strike certain consumer survey

information submitted by complainants

and to sanction complainants for

submitting that information,

complainants filed a motion for leave to

file a surreply brief in response to the

reply brief filed by the IA, and

respondents filed an objection to

complainants’’ surreply brief.

Having reviewed the record in this

investigation, including the written

submissions of the parties, the

Commission has determined (1) to

reverse the ALJ’s finding of no

infringement and no violation by the

KBT model L200 tractor; (2) to find a

violation of section 337 with respect to

20 models of KBT tractors in addition to

the 25 models considered by the ALJ;

and (3) to deny complainants’’ request

for oral hearing, both requests to strike,

respondents’’ request for sanctions, and

complainants’’ motion for leave to file a

surreply brief. The Commission has

further determined that the appropriate

form of relief is a general exclusion

order prohibiting the unlicensed entry

for consumption of agricultural tractors

under 50 power take-off horsepower

manufactured by Kubota Corporation of

Japan that infringe the federallyregistered U.S. trademark ‘‘KUBOTA’’

(Reg. No. 922,330) and eleven cease and

desist orders directed to respondents

Bay Implement Company, Casteel World

Group, Inc. (and related entities), Gamut

Trading Co. (and related entities), Lost

Creek Tractor Sales, MGA, Inc.

Auctioneers, The Tractor Shop, Tractor

Company, and Wallace International

Trading Co. prohibiting the importation,

sale for importation, or sale in the

United States after importation of

agricultural tractors under 50 power

take-off horsepower manufactured by

Kubota Corporation of Japan that

infringe the federally-registered U.S.

trademark ‘‘KUBOTA’’ (Reg. No.

922,330).

The Commission has also determined

that the public interest factors

enumerated in subsections 1337(d) and

(f) do not preclude the issuance of the

general exclusion order and cease and

desist orders, and that the bond during

the Presidential review period shall be

in the amount of 90 percent of the

entered value of the articles in question.

Copies of the Commission’s order, the

public version of the Commission’s

opinion in support thereof, and all other

nonconfidential documents filed in

connection with this investigation are or

will be available for inspection during

official business hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15

p.m.) in the Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearing

impaired persons are advised that

information on the matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal at 202–

205–1810.

Issued: February 25, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5408 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Investigation No. 731–TA–746 (Final)]

Beryllium Metal and High-Beryllium

Alloys From Kazakstan

Determination

On the basis of the record 1 developed

in the subject investigation, the United

States International Trade Commission

determines,2 pursuant to section 735(b)

of the Tariff Act of 1930 (19 U.S.C.

1673d(b)) (the Act), that an industry in

the United States is not materially

injured or threatened with material

injury, and the establishment of an

industry in the United States is not

materially retarded, by reason of

imports from Kazakstan of beryllium

metal and high-beryllium alloys,3 that
Federal Register / Vol. 62, No. 43 / Wednesday, March 5, 1997 / Notices 10071

(HTS). High-beryllium alloys in which beryllium

does not predominate are provided for elsewhere in

the HTS; e.g., high-beryllium alloys in which

aluminum predominates are provided for in HTS

subheading 7601.20.90. Although the HTS

subheadings are provided for convenience and

Customs purposes, the written description of the

scope of this investigation is dispositive.

have been found by the Department of

Commerce to be sold in the United

States at less than fair value (LTFV).

Background

The Commission instituted this

investigation effective March 14, 1996,

following receipt of a petition filed with

the Commission and the Department of

Commerce by Brush Wellman,

Cleveland, OH. The final phase of the

investigation was scheduled by the

Commission following notification of a

preliminary determination by the

Department of Commerce that imports

of beryllium metal and high-beryllium

alloys from Kazakstan were being sold

at LTFV within the meaning of section

733(b) of the Act (19 U.S.C. 1673b(b)).

Notice of the scheduling of the

Commission’s investigation and of a

public hearing to be held in connection

therewith was given by posting copies

of the notice in the Office of the

Secretary, U.S. International Trade

Commission, Washington, DC, and by

publishing the notice in the Federal

Register of September 19, 1996 (61 FR

49341). The hearing was held in

Washington, DC, on January 22, 1997,

and all persons who requested the

opportunity were permitted to appear in

person or by counsel.

The Commission transmitted its

determination in this investigation to

the Secretary of Commerce on February

24, 1997. The views of the Commission

are contained in USITC Publication

3019 (February 1997), entitled

‘‘Beryllium Metal and High-Beryllium

Alloys from Kazakstan: Investigation

No. 731–TA–746 (Final).’’

Issued: February 27, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5413 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Inv. No. 337–TA–381]

Certain Electronic Products, Including

Semiconductor Products,

Manufactured by Certain Processes;

Commission Determination Not To

Review an Initial Determination

Terminating the Investigation on the

Basis of a Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined not to

review the presiding administrative law

judge’s (ALJ’s) initial determination (ID)

(Order No. 24) in the above-captioned

investigation terminating the

investigation on the basis of a settlement

agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Kelly, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

patent-based section 337 investigation

was instituted by the Commission on

February 22, 1996, on behalf of Texas

Instruments Incorporated, Dallas, Texas.

61 FR 6863. The complaint alleged

violations of section 337 in the

importation into the United States, the

sale for importation, and the sale within

the United States after importation of

certain electronic products, including

semiconductor products, that are

manufactured, produced, and assembled

using processes that are covered by

claims 1–8 or 9 of U.S. Letters Patent

4,884,674; claims 1–6 or 7 of U.S.

Letters Patent 5,216,613; or claims 1–14

or 15 of U.S. Letters Patent 4,490,209;

and that there existed an industry in the

United States as required by subsection

(a)(2) of section 337. The notice of

investigation named Samsung

Electronics Company, Ltd., Seoul, Korea

and Samsung America, Inc., Ridgefield

Park, New Jersey as respondents.

On December 23, 1996, the parties to

the investigation, pursuant to

Commission rule 210.21(a)(1) and (b)(1),

filed a joint motion to terminate the

investigation as to all issues based upon

a settlement agreement. On January 30,

1997, the presiding ALJ granted the joint

motion and issued an ID (Order No. 24)

terminating the investigation on the

basis of the settlement agreement. The

ALJ found that there is no indication

that termination of the investigation

would have an adverse impact on the

public interest and that termination

based on settlement is generally in the

public interest. No petitions for review

were filed.

This action is taken under the

authority of section 337 of the Tariff Act

of 1930, 19 U.S.C. 1337, and

Commission rule 210.42, 19 CFR 210.42.

Copies of the public version of the

ALJ’s ID, and all other nonconfidential

documents filed in connection with this

investigation, are or will be available for

inspection during official business

hours (8:45 a.m. to 5:15 p.m.) in the

Office of the Secretary, U.S.

International Trade Commission, 500 E

Street SW., Washington, DC 20436,

telephone 202–205–2000. Hearingimpaired persons are advised that

information on the matter can be

obtained by contacting the

Commission’s TDD terminal on 202–

205–1810.

Issued: February 27, 1997.

By order of the Commission.

Donna R. Koehnke,

Secretary.

[FR Doc. 97–5411 Filed 3–4–97; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 7020–02–P

[Inv. No. 337–TA–385]

Certain Random Access Memories,

Processes for the Manufacture of

Same, and Products Containing Same;

Commission Determination Not To

Review an Initial Determination

Terminating the Investigation on the

Basis of a Settlement Agreement

AGENCY: International Trade

Commission.

ACTION: Notice.

SUMMARY: Notice is hereby given that

the U.S. International Trade

Commission has determined not to

review the presiding administrative law

judge’s (ALJ’s) initial determination (ID)

(Order No. 10) in the above-captioned

investigation terminating the

investigation on the basis of a settlement

agreement.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Mark D. Kelly, Esq., Office of the

General Counsel, U.S. International

Trade Commission, telephone 202–205–

3106.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: This

patent-based section 337 investigation

was instituted by the Commission on

March 19, 1996, on behalf of Samsung

Electronics Company, Ltd., Seoul,

Korea. 61 FR 11222. The complaint

alleged violations of section 337 based

on the importation into the United

States, the sale for importation, and the

sale within the United States after

importation of certain random access

memories and products containing same

that infringe claims 1–3 of U. S. Letters

Patent 4,947,059, claims 1–7 of U. S.

Letters Patent 5,444,026, and claims 1

and 5 of U. S. Letters Patent 5,072,134.

The complaint also alleged that a

domestic industry existed or was in the

process of being established as required

by subsection (a)(2) of section 337. The

notice of investigation named Texas

Instruments Incorporated of Dallas,

Texas, Texas Instruments Singapore

(PTE), Ltd., and Texas Instruments

Japan, Ltd. as respondents.