Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
In the Courts
Daimler Ruling Hangs over Chinese Counterfeiting Case
The U.S. Supreme Court's January ruling in Daimler AG v. Bauman arose from claims of torture, kidnapping and murder in Argentina. But the decision holds promise for foreign defendants in all kinds of cases, as an appeals court illustrated Sept. 17 in a battle over funds held by alleged Chinese counterfeiters at Bank of China Ltd.
In a win for Gucci America Inc. and other luxury retailers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an injunction freezing funds that the counterfeiters deposited in Chinese bank accounts through Bank of China. But the panel vacated a follow-on order requiring BOC to abide by with the injunction and hand over bank records. The Second Circuit cited Daimler , which limited the jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign companies, ruling that more fact-finding is needed to determine whether the district court can order BOC to comply.
September's ruling may be only a temporary setback for the retailers ' Gucci, Balenciaga America Inc., and Yves Saint Laurent America Inc. The case will now be remanded to U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan for further briefing on post- Daimler jurisdictional issues. Sullivan has sided overwhelmingly with the retailers in the case so far.
In a 2010 trademark infringement complaint, the retailers alleged that they discovered knockoff versions of their pricey handbags being sold at domain names like myluxurybags.com and xpressdesigners.com. The case was assigned to Sullivan, who froze Bank of China accounts associated with the counterfeiters behind the phony websites. After Sullivan entered the injunction, the retailers subpoenaed information relating to the bank accounts from Bank of China, which was not a defendant in the case. The bank refused to turn over documents, asserting that doing so would violate Chinese bank secrecy laws.
Sullivan rejected that argument and entered an injunction in 2012 requiring the bank to comply with the subpoena and the asset freeze order. The judge concluded that it is well-established that he had general jurisdiction over Bank of China because of its continuous presence in New York.
The Supreme Court complicated the dispute in January when it decided Daimler . In that case, the high court dismissed a lawsuit against the German carmaker over the alleged role of its Argentine subsidiary in that country's “dirty war.” Critically, the court held that Daimler did not have sufficient “affiliations” with New York to subject it to general jurisdiction in the state.
Based on Daimler , the Second Circuit on Sept. 17 instructed Sullivan to reconsider whether he can order Bank of China's compliance. “In light of Daimler , decided only this year, the district court erred in finding that BOC is properly subject to general jurisdiction,” the panel wrote.
In a related order, the Second Circuit also vacated a similar injunction that U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald entered in a parallel dispute involving Tiffany & Co. and Bank of China, as well as other banks. The same attorneys handled that case. ' Jan Wolfe, The Litigation Daily
Daimler Ruling Hangs over Chinese Counterfeiting Case
The U.S. Supreme Court's January ruling in
In a win for Gucci America Inc. and other luxury retailers, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed an injunction freezing funds that the counterfeiters deposited in Chinese bank accounts through Bank of China. But the panel vacated a follow-on order requiring BOC to abide by with the injunction and hand over bank records. The Second Circuit cited Daimler , which limited the jurisdiction of U.S. courts over foreign companies, ruling that more fact-finding is needed to determine whether the district court can order BOC to comply.
September's ruling may be only a temporary setback for the retailers ' Gucci, Balenciaga America Inc., and Yves Saint Laurent America Inc. The case will now be remanded to U.S. District Judge Richard Sullivan in Manhattan for further briefing on post- Daimler jurisdictional issues. Sullivan has sided overwhelmingly with the retailers in the case so far.
In a 2010 trademark infringement complaint, the retailers alleged that they discovered knockoff versions of their pricey handbags being sold at domain names like myluxurybags.com and xpressdesigners.com. The case was assigned to Sullivan, who froze Bank of China accounts associated with the counterfeiters behind the phony websites. After Sullivan entered the injunction, the retailers subpoenaed information relating to the bank accounts from Bank of China, which was not a defendant in the case. The bank refused to turn over documents, asserting that doing so would violate Chinese bank secrecy laws.
Sullivan rejected that argument and entered an injunction in 2012 requiring the bank to comply with the subpoena and the asset freeze order. The judge concluded that it is well-established that he had general jurisdiction over Bank of China because of its continuous presence in
The Supreme Court complicated the dispute in January when it decided Daimler . In that case, the high court dismissed a lawsuit against the German carmaker over the alleged role of its Argentine subsidiary in that country's “dirty war.” Critically, the court held that Daimler did not have sufficient “affiliations” with
Based on Daimler , the Second Circuit on Sept. 17 instructed Sullivan to reconsider whether he can order Bank of China's compliance. “In light of Daimler , decided only this year, the district court erred in finding that BOC is properly subject to general jurisdiction,” the panel wrote.
In a related order, the Second Circuit also vacated a similar injunction that U.S. District Judge
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?