Source: https://aftaus.com/blog/page/2/
Timestamp: 2019-03-23 13:18:28
Document Index: 597479046

Matched Legal Cases: ['§2320', '§2320', '§ 2320', '§ 2320', '§ 2320', '§ 2320', '§ 1051']

by Lauren | May 16, 2013 | CBP, Copyright, Decoding, Disclosure, First Sale, Front page, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, ORI | 0 Comments
4th Circuit holds that an Altered Genuine Product is Not Counterfeit Pursuant to 18 U.SC. §2320
by Lauren | May 6, 2013 | Court documents, Front page, Lever Rule, litigation | 0 Comments
In U.S. v Cone, the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the exceptions to the definition of a counterfeit trademark found in 18 U.S.C. §2320 prevent a finding of criminally trafficking in counterfeit goods if a genuine mark is applied to a genuine product…even if that product has been repackaged or “materially altered.” A copy of the decision is available through the Resource Center located at https://aftaus.com/resources/.
As explained by the Court, “…criminal liability under § 2320 cannot be based on the alteration of a product to which a genuine mark was affixed and the mark itself has not been altered.”
“…a “counterfeit mark” is defined in § 2320(e)(1) as “a spurious mark.” That is, a trademark used in connection with goods or labels, “that is identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, a [registered] mark . . . the use of which is likely to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive.”
Section 2320 also specifically includes two provisions providing exceptions to a definition of what is included within the defition of a counterfeit mark and both address resale of authentic or genuine goods: (1) an “authorized use” exception and (2) a “repackaging,” or “gray goods,” exception.
The authorized use exception excludes from the definition of of a counterfeit mark “. . . any mark . . . used in connection with goods or services. . . of which the manufacturer or producer was, at the time of the manufacture or production in question, authorized to use the mark” by the trademark holder. § 2320(f)(1).
The second exception bars “a criminal cause of action . . . for the repackaging of genuine goods or services not intended to deceive or confuse.” § 2320(g).
Importantly, these 2 exceptions describing what is not a counterfeit product under the Criminal Code are not found in the definition of a counterfeit trademark under The U.S. Lanham Act (15 U.S.C. § 1051 et seq.,) which provides civil remedies against counterfeiting, infringing and unfair competition.
S 662 CBP Reauthorization Bill – Congress is again looking to expand CBP’s authority to disclose importer information to Rights Holders
by Lauren | May 2, 2013 | CBP, Disclosure, Front page | 0 Comments
On March 22, 2013, Senator Max Baucus of Montana, introduced the “‘Trade Facilitation and Trade Enforcement Reauthorization Act of 2013” (click here to see full text of bill as introduced S 662). Among other provisions, the legislation seeks to further augment CBP’s authority to release an importer’s proprietary supply chain information to unrelated rights holders.
Importantly, under its current interim regulations implementing Section 8 of the NDAA( cbpinterimiprdisclosurerule), CBP already has authority to disclose this information to mark owners, but only AFTER the importer itself has first been provided an opportunity to satisfy any concerns about the product’s authenticity. In this way, CBP is able to better ensure facilitation of lawful trade by simultaneously recognizing the need to protect against entry of counterfeit goods and the obligation to protect an importer’s confidential supply chain information.
AFTA Supporters hope to see, at the very least, that S. 662 will be amended through committee to include these types of critical, necessary and fair importer protections.
6 tion Act of 2013’’
by Lauren | Apr 2, 2013 | Copyright, First Sale, Front page, Internet, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, litigation, Resources | 0 Comments
American Consumers Win Big with Today’s Supreme Court’s Decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley
by Lauren | Mar 19, 2013 | Copyright, First Sale, Front page, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley | 0 Comments
This morning the Supreme Court issued its long-awaited decision in Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, confirming that owners of lawfully-made, copyrighted goods are able to sell, resell, import, distribute, lend or otherwise freely dispose of those products at their discretion, no matter where they were first produced. Here is a copy of the opinion: supreme court opinion in kirtsaeng v wiley
Quality King Distributors had won an earlier first sale decision before the Supreme Court in 1998 (Quality King v. L’Anza Research) in which the Court had determined that the First Sale Doctrine permitted re-importation of U.S. made goods. Alfred Paliani, General Counsel of Quality King Distributors and President of the American Free Trade Association (“AFTA”) issued this statement earlier today: “It has been a long fight for all of us at Quality King. The first sale doctrine is the lifeblood of our business and industry. For the past 100 years, it has been what enables wholesalers and retailers to bring genuine, brand-name goods to the American consumer at competitive prices. We fought for its survival throughout the 1990’s and prevailed, culminating in the Supreme Court’s Quality King v. L’Anza decision. Today, in Kirtsaeng, the Supreme Court has put the icing on the cake, confirming finally that once a copyrighted article is sold — no matter where it was manufactured– it belongs to its buyer who is free to re-sell it, lend it or even give it away without any interference from the copyright holder.”
And, just a short while ago, Gilbert Lee Sandler, Esq., AFTA’s General Counsel offered the following commentary on today’s Supreme Court pronouncement: “This is a great decision for the US economy and its consumers, students and readers. The books in this case — and the watches and shampoos in earlier cases — are now freed from the high prices and restrictive distribution that would have been imposed on the US marketplace had the Court exempted foreign-made goods from the “first sale doctrine.” Now it is clear that goods made abroad and bearing a copyright can continue to be freely sold and imported into the US after their first, authorized sale. Any other decision would have been shocking to our common sense. US law should promote production in the US, not production abroad. Two years ago the Court could not decide whether the same rules should apply to goods made in the US and abroad, setting the stage for favoring goods made off shore as held by some lower courts.. That threat from the courts is now over.”
Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Kirtsaeng….FIRST SALE DOCTRINE APPLIES TO PRODUCTS LAWFULLY MANUFACTURED OVERSEAS
by Lauren | Mar 19, 2013 | Copyright, First Sale, Front page, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley, ORI | 0 Comments
Supreme Court rules 6-3 that the first sale doctrine protects the right to resell products that were lawfully made overseas. Here is a copy of the opinion: SC Opinion 2013 – Kirtsaeng v. Wiley
Stay tuned to this blog and keep monitoring the AFTA website for analysis of the opinion and next steps for AFTA and Industry Supporters. If you have any questions about the case or its impact on your business, please send them to us directly at afta@aftaus.com
2 minute video by Techdirt (www.techdirt.com) exposes risks of Kirtsaeng v. Wiley
by Lauren | Mar 8, 2013 | Copyright, First Sale, Front page, Kirtsaeng v. Wiley | 0 Comments
www.techdirt.com has posted a short, animated and entertaining video explaining what could happen if the U.S. Supreme Court rules against eBay reseller Supak Kirtsaeng in the still-pending case Kirtsaeng v. Wiley. You can watch the video by clicking here: Techdirt Video on First Sale. The video is also featured at www.youvebeenowned.org, which is a consumer call-to-action website published by Demand Progress (www.demandprogress.org).
Kirtsaeng v. Wiley will determine whether or not you can resell products you own if the item or any part of it was manufactured outside of the United States. For more information about the case and its possible impact on both businesses and consumers, type “first sale” in the search box and take a look.
If you would like to learn even more about the issue, become an AFTA Supporter at https://aftaus.com/supportafta/ and enjoy the variety of media and resources available through AFTA’s Industry Resource Center.
by Lauren | Mar 5, 2013 | Copyright, First Sale, Front page, litigation | 0 Comments