JBLU: A Trademark is a Trademark

Remember JBLU, Inc. v. United States? It was an interesting Court of International Trade decision involving whether the use of a geographic terms in a trademark required a country of origin marking in close proximity when the trademark was not registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

What is at issue here is 19 CFR §§ 134.46 and 134.47. Under § 134.46, when a geographic location is indicated on an imported article or its container, and that indication may mislead the ultimate purchaser as to the actual country of origin, then the article must also be marked with it correct country of origin in close proximity. Section 134.47 provides a more lenient rule where the geographical indication is part of a trademark or trade name.

According to the Court of International Trade, without a registration or a pending application, the use of the geographic indicator triggers the more strict requirement for a close-by country of origin marking. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has weighed in and basically said, "You've got to be kidding me."

The Federal Circuit's analysis is nicely reductionist. There is, in this case, no need for fancy arguments. The only question is whether the label on the imported blue jeans which included the terms "USA" and "Los Angeles," were "trademarks" within the meaning of the regulation.

The Federal Circuit opened a dictionary, discovered that the dictionary definition of "trademark" does not depend on whether the mark has been registered or an application for registration is pending. Consequently, without some similar limitation in the regulation, the word "trademark" has to be given its broader meaning. Even definitions from the Lanham Act, which is the U.S. federal trademark law, do not require that the marks be registered to be trademarks. According to the Court of Appeals, the word "trademark," in this context, "unambiguously incudes trademarks without a pending application."

Consequently, the Court of International Trade decision was reversed and the case was remanded.

That is a pretty detailed point of law. But, there is a bigger moral to the story. This reaffirms the uncontroversial proposition that Customs, like all federal agencies, must interpret its regulation consistent with their plain meaning. In the absence of ambiguity, Customs is not entitled to apply the regulation in a way that is inconsistent with the clear meaning. Given the Federal Circuit's perception that this regulation is clear, Customs had no basis on which to read a limitation into it.

Good job to counsel for the plaintiff.


Comments

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