Opinion ID: 581353
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Yamaha II

Text: 50 Additional briefing was provided on whether Yamaha-America was precluded from raising its claim under section 42 that it was entitled to a Lever Brothers exception to the non-applicability of the Lanham Act to the importation of genuine goods. According to Yamaha-America, the gray-market products have the following physical differences: They lack the Underwriters Laboratory Approval and electromagnetic shielding required by the FCC; they have dual voltage switches and different plugs; they are not covered by the same warranties; and they do not include the same training and educational services as those provided by Yamaha-America. Yamaha-America argued that these physical differences between the gray-market and authorized products mean that Yamaha-America may avail itself of the protections provided by section 42 of the Lanham Act. See Lever Bros., 877 F.2d at 111. 51 Appellees argued that Yamaha-America had made the identical argument to the ABC court and that Judge Lew had rejected it. The district court agreed: The ABC court could not have denied Yamaha America's motion [for reconsideration] without rejecting the contention that it failed to consider Yamaha America's arguments concerning physical differences. Yamaha Corp. of Am. v. United States, 745 F.Supp. 734, 736 (D.D.C.1990) (Yamaha II ). According to the district court, ABC resolved the legal question of whether physical differences in gray market products place them within the umbrella of the federal trademark laws, and that is the issue Yamaha America is estopped from rearguing. Id. at 737. The fact that the district court might have reached a different conclusion on the merits under the law of this Circuit is irrelevant, for the doctrine of issue preclusion prevents reaching the merits, even where a different view would prevail. Id. at 738. Concluding that Yamaha-America's efforts to relitigate the relevance of physical differences represents nothing more than garden variety forum shopping, id., the district court dismissed the complaint and entered judgment against appellant.