Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%

Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.

Battling Grey Goods? Advantages of ITC Now Writ in Black and White

By Lyle Vander Schaaf
May 02, 2015

Kubota. Marlboro. Red Bull. Caterpillar. What do they have in common? They're brands and trademarks that have been decisively successful in using the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) to combat parallel imports: that is, grey market goods. See, Agricultural Tractors Under 50 Power Take-off Horsepower, Inv. No. 337-TA-380; Cigarettes and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-643; Certain Energy Drink Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-678; Hydraulic Excavators and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-582.

Customers in the United States often pay more for valued branded goods than buyers of the same goods in less well-developed economies. Higher prices here in the U.S. in turn support profits and shareholder value for manufacturers of branded goods, and strengthen domestic industry.

Yet this pricing disparity for the same products in different markets creates an incentive for the so-called grey market ' genuine and non-counterfeit trademarked products that are imported and sold here outside authorized distribution channels at below-market prices. Rather than purchasing products from a U.S. manufacturer and selling it at the manufacturer's suggested retail price (MSRP), dealers and resellers often can realize higher margins by purchasing at a discount in foreign markets goods that are not authorized for domestic sale, and then importing them to ' and selling them in ' the U.S. When the U.S. dollar appreciates against foreign currencies, the incentive for dealers and resellers in the U.S. to purchase grey market goods is even greater. In many instances, dealers or resellers who are not authorized dealers of a particular manufacturer feel that they have no choice but to rely on grey market goods because they cannot purchase directly from the U.S. manufacturer.

This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only

  • 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

For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473

Read These Next
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws Image

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 Image

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.

Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin Image

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.

Legal Possession: What Does It Mean? Image

Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.

Removing Restrictive Covenants In New York Image

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?