New IPR Bond

Customs and Border Protection has established a new continuous bond category for intellectual property rights holders to use to secure the release of samples of allegedly infringing merchandise. This will simplify the process of getting samples for analysis for companies that often work with CBP to interdict counterfeits or infringing merchandise. Rights holders can also use a single transaction bond, if they prefer.

Here is the notice from Customs, which includes an contact number for more information.

While we are talking IPR, Customs has also finally republished the Informed Compliance Publication on CBP Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. All this activity is probably evidence of Customs' continuing focus on IPR enforcement.

Here is a nagging question I have. Does anyone in Customs represent the innocent legitimate importer in enforcement policy. The reason I ask is that I have seen clients with legitimate, non-infringing merchandise suffer very serious expense and delays trying to secure the release of merchandise. I understand that the the rights holders a legally entitled to protection and I am also very aware of the economic contribution intangible property makes to the U.S. economy. We should not allow free riders and criminals to hijack a brand. But, the innocent party that buys legitimate merchandise through parallel, unauthorized channels can rarely produce a chain of documentation back to the authorized producer. Neither the producer nor the rights holder has any interest, under the current system, in facilitating that importation. So the importer is stuck.

For now, the solution for the importer is to make sure the purchase agreement is contingent upon release of the merchandise and includes an indemnification for losses due to defending infringement claims, CBP penalties, storage expenses, etc. Of course, the guy selling NFL jerseys from a truck in Tijuana or shampoo from a card table in Red Square in Moscow is unlikely to agree to those terms.

Comments

Peter Quinter said…
Larry,


With you 100% regarding nonauthorized, yet legitimate importers of genuine merchandise being harassed by CBP.

Peter Quinter
May 11, 2011, 4:34:00 AM
Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

CAFC Decision in Double Invoicing Case

The Federal Circuit has issued a decision on the merits in United States v. Inn Foods, Inc.  There had been a previous decision on jurisdiction, which was followed by a trial at the Court of International Trade and then this appeal on the substance. The initial issue is whether Inn Foods' invoicing practice amounts to fraud.  Inn Foods had been receiving an invoice from growers in Mexico that had a relatively low sales prices on it.  Subsequent to entry, Inn Foods created a second invoice at something more similar to market value, retaining the original invoice number, and paid at that higher amount.   Superficially, this looks like a standard-issue double-invoicing scheme.  But, in the age of reconciliation, is it really more like a provisional pricing mechanism?  It might have been possible to make that argument had Inn Foods adjusted its entries accordingly.  It didn't and the loss of revenue was approximately $624,000.  Based on testimony and evidence indicating both knowl
Read more

Target on Finality

Image
In the last post , about the Federal Circuit’s very important decision on due process and allegations of evasion of antidumping duties, I made a snarky, offhand comment that the government believes “liquidation is magic.” That was in the context of the government arguing that Customs’ liquidation of entries mooted an appeal, thereby taking away the importer’s right to further judicial review. I said that knowing full well that I still needed to write this post summarizing Target Corp. v. United States in which Target made what I want to be a valid and righteous argument that Customs’ improper liquidation of entries at a favorable rate of antidumping duty prevents the Court of International Trade from ordering Customs to collect the legally applicable duties. But it turns out that while liquidation is an important legal step, in at least one unusual circumstance it is not sufficiently powerful to overcome the full force of an Article III court. Understanding this case requires a lot
Read more

CAFC: EAPA Process Really Does Violate Due Process

Image
Hot on the heels of my complaining about how the EAPA law and process is stacked against importers, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has issued an important decision that will have a major impact on how those cases work. If you are unfamiliar with evasion cases under the Enforce and Protect Act and how Customs and Border Protection handles them, go back and look at these two posts: Part 1 , Part 2. Royal Brush Manufacturing, Inc. v. United States , is the decision in an evasion case against Royal Brush involving pencils allegedly transshipped from China through the Philippines. Customs determined that there was evasion of an antidumping duty order based in part on evidence that was not disclosed to Royal. Specifically, Customs sent a representative to the facility in the Philippines to photograph the interior and provide a report. Customs refused to disclose all the photographs to Royal. Moreover, CBP's report concluded that the facility did not have sufficient capacit
Read more