Tabberone Logo

Tabberone is pronounced tab ber won
not tay ber own

Tabbers Temptations     www.tabberone.com/Trademarks/ Home | Site Index | Disclaimer | Email Me!
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing"
Edmund Burke


The Tabberone™ Archives
These articles concern what we consider major trademark and copyright issues. They are usually reproduced with the original source referenced. Bear in mind, these articles are copyrighted and commercial use without permission of the authors may be considered infringement. The intended use here is educational, commentary and non-commercial. The reason they are reproduced in the Tabberone™ Archives, as opposed to just providing a link, is because links disappear and pages are removed. That presents a messy confirmation process that is annoying to the browser (you) but also presents a credibility issue. We do not claim any rights in these pieces. Do not regard the absence of a copyright statement or © to mean the article is not copyrighted. Some sites do not have a copyright statement.

When an article or a comment is posted on the internet by the copyright owner, the owner is seeking a world-wide, 24/7 audience; sometimes for a limited amount of time, sometimes indefinitely. In essence, an internet posting intentionally relinquishes one's copyright for exclusivity because the owner has posted it on the internet to been seen by everyone, everywhere. The Tabberone™ Archives non-commercial duplication of the posting is simply a continuance of the original wishes of the copyright owner. We post these articles for reference, for commentary and for confirmarion of our position.

Source:
http://www.kmob.com/Pages/art7.htm

These are excerpts from the original article by Knobbe Martens Olson & Bear LLP.

No Prohibition on Imports Where Common Ownership Exists Between U.S. Trademark Holder and Foreign Service

The U.S. courts have also developed an exception to Katzel where there is a parent-subsidiary relationship between the U.S. trademark holder and the foreign manufacturer. The rationale generally relied on for this exception is that the trademark owner, as part of the corporate entity, has already benefited from the profits it received from the foreign sales, and should not be able to use the U.S. trademark laws to set up discriminatory pricing schemes which prejudice U.S. consumers.

In Weil Ceramics and Glass, Inc. v. Dash, the Third Circuit distinguished Katzel and extended the Supreme Court’s interpretation of the Tariff Act in K-Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc. to deny trademark protection as a means of preventing parallel imports. Weil, the plaintiff trademark holder, was the wholly owned subsidiary and exclusive U.S. distributor of Lladro, a Spanish company. The defendant purchased Lladro porcelain from the Spanish manufacturer and imported it into the United States without Weil’s permission. The Third Circuit denied trademark protection to prevent the importation because of the common ownership between Weil and the Spanish manufacturer:

Weil is not independent of the foreign manufacturer … Thus, even if Weil loses some share of its United States market to [the defendant], it nonetheless benefits from the profits it received as part of the corporate entity from which [the defendant] purchased the goods abroad … the Lanham Act … [does not] protect a foreign manufacturer — that either owns or is owned by a domestic trademark holder — from compensation … in the United States by a domestic importer that it has supplied.

Similarly, in NEC Electronics v. CAL Circuit Abco, the Ninth Circuit focused on the corporate affiliation between the U.S. trademark holder and the Japanese manufacturer to deny Lanham Act protection to NEC—USA:

If NEC-Japan chooses to sell abroad at lower prices than those it would obtain for the identical products here, that is its business. In doing so, however, it cannot look to United States trademark law to insulate the American market or to vitiate the effects of international trade. This country’s trademark law does not offer NEC-Japan a vehicle for establishing a worldwide discriminatory pricing scheme simply through the expedient of setting up an American subsidiary with nominal title to its mark.

Thus there is no Lanham Act or Tariff Act violation when there is importation into the United States of genuine trade marked goods sold abroad by the patent or subsidiary of the U.S. trademark holder.

General
Articles | Cease and Desist Letters | Federal Court Cases | FAQs & Whines | Glossary | Hall Of Shame | Contributions

Corporate Lawyers
Cartoons | Code Of Ethics | Courtroom Remarks | Definition Of A Lie | Jokes | Lawyers | Lying | Who Have Lied

eBay - Land The Game

Definitions

Trademark Definitions
Blurring   |   Confusion   |   Damages   |   Dilution   |   History   |   Initial Interest Confusion   |   Likelihood Of Confusion   |   Material Difference Standard
Parallel Imports   |   Post-sale Confusion   |   Puffery   |   Secondary Meaning   |   Subsequent Confusion   |   Trademark Abuse
Unauthorized Use   |   Unfair Competition   |   What is a Trademark?
Copyright Definitions
Angel Policies   |   Contributory Infringement   |   Copyrightability   |   Copyright Extortion   |   Copyright Misuse Doctrine
; Derivative   |   The Digital Millennium Copyright Act   |   EULA   |   Fair Use   |   First Sale Doctrine   |   Product Description   |   Registration
Registration Denied   |   What is a Copyright?   |   What is not Copyrightable?
Other Issues
Embroidery Designs   |   FAQs & Whines   |   Image and Text Theft   |   Licensed Fabric   |   Licensing & Licenses   |   Patterns
Patterns Index   |   Profit   |   Quilting   |   Selvage   |   Stanford School of Law Case Outline
Tabberone Disclaimer   |   Trademark Extortion   |   Urban Myths   |   What To Do If You Are Veroed

Federal Court Cases
Alphabetically | by Federal Circuit | by Subject | by Court Quotations

Federal Statutes
Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 5 | Digital Millenium Copyright Act 17 U.S.C. 12 | Lanham Act 15 U.S.C. 22
<

VeRO (Verified Right's Owner Program)
VeRO Commandments | VeRO-Verified Rights Owners Program | Counter Notice Letter
Counter Notice (pre-2003) | Counter Notice present | On-Line Survey from 2004 | Articles about VeRO | What To Do If You Are Veroed

Original material by Karen Dudnikov & Michael Meadors is © 1999-2017

wordpress analytics